Category: rationale

definition, design philosophy, rationale

Two directions

If total surveillance and omnisciently intrusive CCTV serve only to inhibit us and not Putin et al, the new swords we must begin to develop must have radically new philosophies, much more than just beefier technologies.

On why we need radically new secrecy-positive architectures | Mil Williams, 24th August 2023, Manchester UK

I think I’m being offered two directions to move forwards definitively on my projects. And I think in my mind it’s clarifying my view on what to do next, where, and how.

I think the two directions can both happen, too.

But for many reasons, only one can happen here in the UK, in Ireland and most other places we consider.

If my thinking isn’t mistaken, the security version must only happen in Sweden and countries which share the philosophy that is embedded firmly in a wider Scandinavian way of foregrounding the citizen and their rights when constructing and rebuilding democracies.

So.

What I think is being suggested:

IVP1

1. My #neurodiverse #complexproblem-solutioning proposals may sit in many and perhaps all cultures eventually. If you like, the B2C product and service, where the “C” of B2C equals “Culture”, and which the Swedish intuition corporation I am proposing we build as per The Guardian newspaper group’s Scott Trust would deliver, mostly, indirectly.

Here, in the wider field of using arts-based thinking for solving real-world problems, therefore, practically anything and anyone gets a hearing:

• complexify.me

• complexifylab.com

Meantime, the Swedish corporation I would like us to create would not, as alluded to, be involved directly in even a tenth of all the activities that might arise through this Intuition Validation Project 1 (IVP1), alongside its set of related workstreams.

• www.sverige2.earth/unified

We would only need to license the rights for using the core technologies and philosophies I’ve been thought-leading since 2016. That’s as far as we would go. No need, for example, to shape how any of this was to be implemented. No longer would there exist roadblocks on any side to arise.

It would, therefore, even be possible to make these platforms and architectures available from the starting-blocks for countries with whose security policies I, and a wider Swedish society quite separately and much before me, fundamentally find ourselves disagreeing on: for example, oppressive manifestations of total surveillance & CCTV, and the complete removal of public access to encryption and so forth, even in banking applications, being the approach the UK has been advocating and wishing to put into practice for decades.

Equally, the Swedish and similar, where total surveillance is employed, use it to enable the citizenry and make them feel safer and more empowered: never to make them sense, as we do get to suspect in the UK, that they are permanently being inspected and tracked in order to bulldoze voters and similar into good behaviours out of tools, primarily, aimed at inducing fear.

Seen in Vällingby tunnelbana station, Stockholm Sweden, 2023

And that’s a philosophical difference of import: in the UK, we trust that people will be bad: that is, secular Original Sin. In other countries, we trust that enabling the help of the citizenry is paramount; we trust that what we might call “good trust” needs to be promoted strategically. Here, then, it’s not enough to be secure at all; we need to be safe, too. We shouldn’t have to be looking over our shoulders all the time. And our policies should reflect this.

One Swedish example to underline: street CCTV on private and state buildings must look down only on the entrance itself to the building being surveilled. No dragnet across all passers-by.

So. If we think like this — IVP1 I mean — there’s no need to negotiate these matters any more, before we may begin, because IVP1 will be in the hands of creators of different kinds, even where what they create may deliver tangible and utilitarian real-world solutions.

And then again, just the one condition too: periodic licence fees, but ourselves, as an intuition-validation corporation, being utterly hands-off.

IVP2

2. Security — the project we might now call IVP2 — is a quite different matter, however.

My Criminal Justice Master dissertation (linked to here), from 2017, on the subject of secular Original Sin*, laid it out really clearly: in an ever more complex world there will be no edge obtained by law enforcement and security if we ensure citizens feel as pursued as the real criminals. The only way we can be collectively more than the bad guys and gals is if we get citizens deeply onside: enabling them to act out their proactive roles as joint defenders of the law. It’s not enough that they just nod their acquiescence to what we claim to be doing when faced by the horrors of modern criminality.

Until countries like the UK accept that our total surveillance-friendly software architectures (admins who see all; users who see nothing but even so are aware, all too aware, how they are being permanently surveilled) have fatally inhibited — impaled, even — our own capacity to think creatively in security, crimefighting and law-enforcement contexts, we cannot develop my ideas in respect of security where such acceptance is not forthcoming.

• www.secrecy.plus/fire

Because criminals like the Putins of this world do continue to enjoy their own deepest secrecy-positive spaces whilst they longitudinally plan our destruction, despite our own ongoing total surveillance strategies:

• www.secrecy.plus/why

You get now, I hope, then, where my objections really lie; where they are firmly seated? If total surveillance and omnisciently intrusive CCTV serve only to inhibit us and not Putin et al, the new swords we must begin to develop must have radically new philosophies, much more than just beefier technologies.

Security for me, therefore, sits where the right philosophies existed prior to my own arrival. And my travails when writing the dissertation in question back in 2017, clearly caused me by British security, indicate, even post-Ukraine, that for quite a while they will not be enabled here in the UK.

To summarise:

IVP1 — just about everywhere

IVP2 — the kind of places and states where new swords may come into being from a prior and existent embedded instinct and impulse to openness and invention in the fields of tech philosophy and architectures

Yeah?

____________________

* Footnote: under total surveillance philosophies we are no longer innocent until proven guilty but incessantly, and permanently, considered guilty, whilst never to be proven innocent again.

definition, design philosophy, rationale

“astrids trädgård”: the swedish-located bletchley park

I’ve been note-taking again; yesterday on the tunnelbana (Stockholm’s metro) and today in one particular Joe & the Juice I love because of the jazz playlist you often get in the mornings. The one near Hötorget.

I’ve taken a liberty, too. It may not be the right thing to do: but if it’s not, we can amend and choose something else. What follows I have headed as “Astrid’s Garden”, in its English translation. Because, just as Alan Turing was a man of good genius, and yet had to fight for his right to be himself, so Astrid Lindgren, in a different time, place and culture, chose to fight what she believed in. And like Turing, it was for and behalf of a society which one day might become of the good.

Here is the stream of thought I’ve had over last night through to just after this midday …

me, at the moderna museet recently

mission:

fight fire with water wherever possible; only fight it with fire when utterly unavoidable

1. all the participating organisations achieve representation in terms of the potential and promise of individuals who belong to each.

to achieve this:

we create a bespoke evaluation process which allows us to identify this individual potential and promise in ways no one dreamed of.

the basis of the project is neuro-diverse complex problems-solutioning tech architectures: hardware, wearables and software all.

• https://www.sverige2.earth/unified

stepped in stages from the first privacy-sensitive structures through privacy-positive and secrecy-sensitive to the final goal: secrecy-positive.

• https://www.sverige2.earth/complexify-roadmap

we should spend as much money on people and their brains as we ever will on tech.

why does this feel uncomfortable? when did we ever feel spending massive amounts of money on tech was wrong? isn’t that the purpose of tech — to have money spent on it? ok. well. lots of virtues in that, for sure. but why not feel comfortable with doing the opposite? spending money on people: on our strengths and our capabilities.

• https://www.secrecy.plus/hmagi | hmagi.com

why not?

what could it mean?

spending directly, with salaries that allow for correct, humane, and moral conditions and sustenance; and then supportively, re technologies that upskill, expand and enhance the capacity for — ultimately — a wholly secrecy-positive “pure thought” that each person chosen will be chosen for because they already bring it – in more or less raw state — to the table at the start.

the projects and workstreams will then be enabled to first drive with efficiency (that is, leading to hyper-nonconformist hyper-performing person-focussed inside-out tech always) but along the way also creating regularly and inclusively (that is, what i have already conceptualised as hyperteam-delivering tech) as the programme progresses.

• https://thephilosopher.space

2. the goal is, however, also unremitting. completely so. as completely as the uk’s bletchley park during the second world war.

the targets as twofold:

a) bad actors; and b) preferred outcomes

a) the first target will focus on russia and china, and others who have, equally, allowed the criminality of the aforementioned to embed itself longitudinally throughout these years: from the russian wealth and war-focussed revenue streams in the uk alongside the collaboration at, and of, all levels of the conservative party to the chinese “police stations” spreading across supposedly sovereign britain and europe, with huawei and others as pure extensions of the chinese government’s aims to install surveillance within our internet backbones, never mind on phones, devices multiple, and so forth … all these are all examples of what i have called neocrime:

• https://crimehunch.com/neocrime

things we don’t see or even imagine until usually their creators have moved on to something else, at which point they lose interest in ongoing concealment. because whilst concealment exists, it happens for one reason: those committing such criminality are clever enough not to need to show anyone, ever, exactly how clever they are.

so we simply remain unaware, thinking “random” or “life” or … whatever.

3. astrids trädgård must therefore exist to anticipate, scope, identify, protect, and serve the interests of a real, good western democracy.

there is more we need to focus on …

b) in the best traditions of the united nations, we don’t only focus on detail, which is often passing. we focus also on the overarching and inalienable: the universal; the unchanging … literally and figuratively.

this is why i would add to the word “unremitting” already introduced one other word:

4. when we are able to fight fire with water, the word already mentioned. but when fire is our only alternative, then perhaps from a related org not open to astrids trädgård personnel themselves (for everyone’s mental wellbeing and sense of proportion and focus) we must fight this awful longitudinal fire that led to ukraine in the first place, and is sustained by the joint authoritarianism of russia and the chinese since much longer than we care to realise, with an equally merciless fire of our own.

so … proportionality always:

proportionate always, i repeat: but more than what “unremitting” tells us. and you may disagree, too; we may need to refine; we might have to finesse.

but in all cases, peter levine, the american civic thinker, and one of the most humane humans who ever lived, was right: good democracy demands we be inclusive, yes, but equally … we must be efficient.

• https://peterlevine.ws/?p=6359

so if covert spending exists to fund the fire with fire side, then it must have another name and mission quite different from astrids trädgård.

5 however, one thing must remain sharply clear: the final goal of both organisations will thankfully be shared.

it must be thus:

the objectives of both fire with water and fire with fire are to preserve, expand, deliver, share, and educate everyone globally — facilitating, also, that everyone become completely versed re these arts of learner and teacher — in the virtues of what i have seen in sweden these months:

a community spirit built on the absolute sovereignty of what we all hope are ultimately the nation’s most thinking citizens. and with this i mean … everyone in their absolute diversity and dignity to be enabled to express themselves of this diversity.

we MUST, similarly, trust that human beings will prefer their innate humanity over what we see in ukraine, in london’s richest money-laundering centres, in china, in places of similar authoritarianism across the globe — just so many, too many, far too many.

but in order for a human being to prefer humanity over inhumanity when the choice presents itself, we also MUST give the humanity we want to flower the tools to make it possible for all people to FEEL that it’s SAFE TO BE GOOD.

which is why i say: nation-building and citizen-building have to be accompanied by fighting crime and ensuring global security in the ways i will never stop advocating. ways which, to date, we have absolutely never pursued.

i hope this is ok. i hope for many reasons.

and i am always open to debate, to new ideas, to restructuring it all, if the evidence says it must be so.

but i also hold true to the reality that no one believed anything i said for twenty, and maybe more, years … but twenty at least.

and so i cry now not for me, but for the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions too, of other human beings who still aren’t believed in just the same way because we knowingly, negligently, make it possible for criminals (and all similar — including those who advantage themselves of loopholes and zemiological processes multiple) to be far more creative and nonconformist in their criminality than we have dared — ever CARED! — to be in our battle against the same.

one final thought:

just reconsider this.

just one more time.

why are criminals the strongest link in their criminality whilst the security industry consistently sustains the rest of us humans must be the weakest link in security?

• https://www.secrecy.plus/fire

it wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that it’s easier to monetise a widely imposed, machine-based counterforce to criminality than it is to integrate machines closely and sympathetically with the actual needs of the most competent, existent crimefighters we already have.

finding themselves, it’s true, not only having to fight the rampant criminality that leads directly to authoritarian russia and ukraine but also the #it- and #ai-#tech which their manufacturers utterly refuse, even today, especially today, to make supportive of humans as we actually are.

would it?

definition, design philosophy, rationale

and what if i am right in respect of #neoterrorismontheindividual (#noi)? and what if people like me are simply canaries in the mine?

and maybe the real problem here is that it’s not my sensitivity that makes me personally dysfunctional but your insensitivity that enables putin, society-wide, over and over again, to leave babies in their cots, bleeding red and dead as they slept.

mil williams, 14th august 2023, stockholm sweden

• neo-terrorism on the individual: how to undermine society without society ever realising it’s been happening | #darkfigure #neocrime | slide-deck version here

our problem

your problem is as follows.

if i am right re #noi, it’s been undermining all our societies for decades:

our = western, as well as locally here

and where i am right, the owners of #neoterrorismontheindividual and its processes and tools collect data on everyone, without exception. however, their owners and users choose when to use this data: they pick their moments and actual targets really judiciously.

mostly, it only gets visibly used against those who notice: what happened to me in 2003 in the uk.

but imagine if everyone began to notice: what then?

then, all the data these bad actors have collected on you over the years — keeping their powder utterly dry, if you like, in expectation of inevitable future need — would allow them to rapidly up their game overnight: because then, for them, the threat level would actually begin to exist. to date, it’s been all one-sided: theirs.

so what then?

#noi would become a visible act of repression, not an invisible one. it wouldn’t be #neocrime any more. what before sociology and criminology called #darkfigure:

• crimehunch.com/neocrime

and maybe #ukraine is not a sign of putin’s strengths in longitudinal gaslighting, though it might be easy to come to this conclusion.

maybe it’s a sign of his ultimate desperation. for his version of #noi, even factoring in pandemic, banking scandals, and three wars of his making in the last fifteen years, haven’t led quite enough to the total dislocation of western economies he sorely — and i’m sure dearly — expected would be delivered after all these years of having being a kgb acolyte of the worst, turned thug in fancy suits of the most horrible and politically immobilising kind.

because #ukraine has never just been about territory. that is, not physical. equally, and maybe much more, it’s been about distracting and dismantling western unity and sense of time & place: all good people’s mental territories and landscapes.

in the end, putin and his ilk are not even spymasters: they’re chessmasters in the most terrifying traditions. it’s chess they’re playing, not politics. total surrender, but sometimes — right to the end — with you not even thinking it’s going to be your fate. like the jews in the ghettos: worse than this, it surely can’t get.

in conclusion?

i can live with being ignored. i can live with being gaslit daily, in the trivial and incompetent ways they do. i can live with the #ukraines we have awaiting us. i suffered the #balkan one. i survived that, even at the cost of being improperly incarcerated as a result of the another democratic dismantling in 2003: the terrifying lead-up to #iraq which led to my own provoked mental dysfunctionality.

and we can’t forget 9/11: we never must.

and we can’t forget #pandemic either, though we already are: how the mercilessly rich knew it was coming and prepared their supply lines to benefit.

but let’s just imagine that for every hyper-sensitive person you assume people like me are, what you’re really witnessing are canaries in the mine: and meantime, as you laugh at us, and those who cause pandemic graft, invasions like #ukraine, disasters like #iraq, tragedies like 9/11 … and #brexit, and #trump, and all that stuff … well, maybe we’re not sensitive to irrelevance; maybe, instead, you’re insensitive to the embedded criminality that starts with the smallest of communities, the tiniest of acts, the symbolic gaslighting of the idiot on the metro … and maybe the real problem here is that it’s not my sensitivity that makes me personally dysfunctional but your insensitivity that enables putin, society-wide, over and over again, to leave babies in their cots, bleeding red and dead as they slept.

“Building the FEARless CITIZEN” #NoFutureUkraines
definition, design philosophy, rationale

It CAN’T get any easier: just use the past to protect our collective future-present …

I’ve been asked to simplify the dynamics.

So here I do …

Example workstreams and projects which may begin to form part of any work we collectively deliver

The first step to working on the projects under discussion

There is one condition we must all fulfil in order to work on these projects and workstreams in the future:

  • be aware — and practise daily this awareness — of #neoterrorismontheindividual. This means we realise completely and unreservedly that all our past and current decision-making processes and outcomes may have been the result of an embedded criminality and related zemiology, designed strategically to undermine — profoundly and covertly — our true capacity to act independently

“Neo-Terrorism on the Individual” — an overview … but now as defence tool, no longer research proposal

The two linked-to documents in the section that follows below, which originally formed part of a #phd-level draft proposal of mine from a couple of years back, may now be more helpful as descriptors of what I, and maybe many other people, have been experiencing over these years.

It’s more popularly and more generally known as #gaslighting: but I think in certain societies we’ve been suffering from an immensely technified version of it.

This is why I have given it its own name: “Neo-Terrorism on the Individual”.

That is, a tech-driven longitudinal terrorism delivered efficiently on specific human and organisational targets and marks, in order to shape societies over the years in the direction of certain toxic sociopolitical and business interests.

In this sense then, the two documents mentioned should perhaps be seen more as forming a manual of instructions than a research idea any more, in order to begin to foment and ensure a growing awareness of the tech-driven tactics which certain criminal and zemiological actors may still be using — and broadly at that:

Noted: the above is as true of organisations and nation-states in terms of their collective natures and interests as it is in respect of individuals like you and me, being persons with allegedly direct responsibility for our behaviours and actions.

If we achieve this goal, what should we do next?

If we get sign-up and buy-in, to what effectively is a CULTURE of working re all the #privacysensitive, #privacypositive, #secrecysensitive and #secrecypositive projects and workstreams I am proposing, then the organisational and agency law- and regulation-making which has to exist specifically for such projects and our own personal behaviours will be much to administer, inspect, ensure, and deliver on.

Why? Because CULTURE promotes the rule of laws which emerge from the same organically, and therefore make it much easier and possible for people to see them as their own: thus, compliance is achieved out of approval not fear.

Meantime, LAWS ONLY, created by ruling classes (whether elected or de facto) which attempt to IMPOSE what is surely only their culture, clearly outside the majority (the UK is an example ever since I was born; Ireland has become so over the years as a result of its incestuous financial dependence on global tech), only lead to the corruption and illegitimacy that facilitate authoritarianism behaviours and outcomes, where the same need for compliance — for society by definition needs its citizens to comply in some measure — here is achieved primarily, and sometimes exclusively, through tools and discourses of fear.

Just because you smile when you impose your authoritarianism doesn’t make you any less an authoritarian.

Now … does it?

To summarise …

“For anyone, including myself, to be enabled to work on any and/or all of these projects — which for the moment I shall globally describe as the #gutenbergofintuitivethinking, or the printing-press of intuition — we have to accept that our human agency during our personal present-past, in respect of the decisions we took both privately and work-related, may have been fatally compromised by forces truly outwith our ken.

Not mystical or mysterious forces. No. Not this. Just human beings and organisations acting deliberately to longitudinally benefit, in planned and roadmapped ways, their hyper-focussed and zemiological self-interests, prejudicing a much more shared and collective present-past which could have been. And in fact still could be: one, that is, which benefits every human being, and which will be firmly based on all individuals’ sovereignties.”

So … quite simple, really. Accept the thesis of #neoterrorismontheindividual as a potential reality we have suffered from without perhaps realising it in all aspects of our lives to date. Nothing we did, however apparently deeply thought, was of our own doing.

And so our human agency became anything but human.

Wouldn’t it be a quite remarkable achievement if we could, as a first step to remaking our civilisation in the image of the root word “to civilise”, eliminate compassionately not surgically all such #neoterrorismontheindividual in, say, seven years?

And parallel to all that, begin to deliver all this:

definition, design philosophy, rationale

some developed thoughts on CORE

as if we were talking, in fact, about creating software code in the shape of UN inalienable rights and charters, conventions and manifestos, and stuff with these kinds of discourses, as opposed to the more conventional laws and regulatory approaches parliaments and so forth generally prefer to come up with

mil williams, 7th august 2023, stockholm sweden
www.sverige2.earth

from my iphone’s app this late morning / around midday:

introduction

yes

this is what we can embrace, if we choose to:

• one nation-state fully onboard

• one big tech partner, fully committed

• one local and regional web of finance, legislation, tax, accountability, delivery, and societal benefit: sweden

then once this is secured, we can discuss exporting

but not before

in respect of past deeds

not interested in the past in respect of those of us who deserve to be in CORE

am interested in collective future-present and deep partners who want a different future-present from the ones we’ve all been a part of in the past

this i repeat is also true for me, just as much as for anyone else or for any other org

good

on trust systems and their development

this means … we have to learn to trust each other, but always suspect everyone and everything

be childlike to the most if you like; but equally, not naive in the least

game-changing trust is built over time with tools no one has ever considered

this is why we need the brightest nonconformist brains committed to changing the world for the better: both gradually and overnight

that is, parallel processes

the value of cultural dissonance and internal respect amongst all parties

yes

true

everything is best when combined

not one or the other team

everything

cultural dissonance and cultural rub are the preconditions for both innovation and invention

but the condition being that different types of seeing and doing also learn to value the others interchangeably and equally

generously

truly generously

so as long as with this caveat upfront and conditioning everything we all do, we will also need conformists at the base of everything we do

my work / life expectations and aspirations

personally, i want to live modestly

i want to think untrammelled, obviously

so this is why i need the modest life to ensure the untrammelled doesn’t leak into my behaviours

a modest life, therefore

decent food

healthy exercise

and a dollop of joy every so often

the fields of action and play

the battlegrounds are various:

• resistance: putin’s russia and everyone who approves of its actions

• fightback: putin’s russia and everyone who approves of its actions

• long-term, however, the focus MUST be local and regional: embedded global criminals at local and regional levels who use symbolic communication as per mafias everywhere, to evade justice as it currently stands, need to be dealt with

why? these are the real funding streams that enable putin and his ilk everywhere to not only have the cruel ambitions they have but the capability, the financial muscle, to deliver on them: local crime turfs spread out across the continents and connected via 21st century digital means

implications

thus:

in my judgement, law enforcement and trusted private security need both to be involved at the start, at least with the 100-day rapid app development programmes that use existing architectures

but they have so much knowhow, the aforementioned security and citizen-safety orgs and their people i mean, that they deserve to be in deep, also from the beginning, re the scoping of new architectures and ways of structuring tech

but i am always open to other opinions and views

always will be, now

now we begin to propose having these foundations

my emotional life

i’d like an emotional life, yes

someone with a view of life i can engage with and which allows her to engage with my work and play, both

and me with hers in equal, and absolutely peer-to-peer, measure

and it’s obviously part of the whole, but firm foundations to the project as we are discussing today will help me be much much more patient and much much less needy now

so all good

it’s ok

with the two pillars we need to fight neo-terrorism on the individual (noi), trust will grow very quickly

https://mils.page/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/neoterrorism_on_the_individual_and_western_democracy_1626703915.pdf

ok

re spain

spain sits curiously: i separate what i feel about the country easily from what i feel about the personal, which obviously has existed from the start

so it’s ok in this respect

i could travel to and from and work with people from there, despite the fact that i also had really dreadful experiences with businesspeople there once upon a time

and i don’t know why now ok. maybe there is a reason. maybe just time

maybe just the time that has elapsed

why sweden

for me, in my opinion, humbly expressed, sweden is objectively better as a collective built on individual rights than any other country i have ever known or lived in

whatever it is, the most important thing for me here in sweden is that i see people who strive to be good people every day. and even people with the power to effect change (eg in the uk there are also plenty of good people: none of them are powerful)

not all people here do this, of course. not all do good by any means, even in my limited personal experience

impossible that it should be so

maybe, even, not desirable: it wouldn’t be allowing for the human we sometimes imperfectly have to be

but enough do good to the best of their ability for the threshold to be far gooder than i have sensed intuitively at any other time in my life

anywhere else

and not just strive and then wave their hands foolishly when it doesn’t work:

• because you don’t fucking give up until it works here in sweden

• but you don’t get silly either. you wait until this moment arrives beautifully, and only then do you pounce supportively

it’s a series of behaviours i would love one day to emulate well myself

so again, here it’s true: people laugh a lot

and this is good

but sarcasm isn’t a national trait as far as i can see

inquisitiveness defo is

a thirst to uncover and discover

it’s refreshing

it suits my own deep ways of being and seeing

and maybe now much more possible, my ways of doing

a caveat or two re funding provenance

as long as we establish funding-stream provenance professionally and competently, i’m open to support from whom you judge trustworthy

even the countries i’ve mentioned in less glowing terms

yeah

and so i guess some covert part of the uk, which isn’t and never will be mi5 or have relationships with the unis that have bad-actor funding connections … even here we could propose some kind of engagement after the groundwork i’m sketching out today was firmly put in place

the evidence of good faith would have to be overpowering, tho’. absolutely incontrovertible and irreproachable … and right now, no one in the uk is in a position to offer anyone this evidence of their ability to distinguish between political right and geopolitical wrong

who may form part of CORE

none of them as CORE, for reasons that should be obvious (and if to you who are reading these words they’re not obvious, this pretty automagically precludes you from any participation at any level for a long time: certainly, until they do become obvious to you)

not that, then: not them inside CORE

this means, therefore, that none of the alluded to, i repeat, will have any CORE influence over how and what and when and stuff re product, service, platform architectures, and so on.

none will have the ability to impose their preferred approaches whereby innovation would become mere tweaking, and invention something we never even broach. ukraine can’t be won through a mentality of tweaks, after all (and if you believe it can, that’s why you’re automagically not going to be a part of CORE)

• such parties will only be enabled to participate — if we decide they deserve it — as right-at-the-end clients, in a covert marketplace if covert is needed

• and if not needed, a public marketplace of b2b and b2gov

• but no bespoke or consultative products, services or outcomes here

what CORE will consist of

this is my proposal, as it stands today:

• one committed nation-state: that is, yourselves

• your local and regional business, commercial, tax, legislative, delivery and sociocultural infrastructures as framework in perpetuity

• finally, where this is judged advisable and collaboratively intelligent, one big tech partner who wants to redo the world, including maybe what they did in other times which they’d now begin to question … (but then again, this will clearly be the same for most of the rest of us too, as already observed)

if it has to be eventually more oppenheimer than curie, that’s ok

i understand

but curie laid the foundations for oppenheimer, after all

and if it’s more global boiling than fighting directly the kind of criminality i’ve been discussing itself, i’d still say that to ensure our researchers feel brave enough and protected enough to deliver the killer blows to the climate denial we all want them to deliver, they need to know and feel they will be permanently and efficiently protected to the max from new kinds of crime and zemiology, potentially conducted on their persons day in, day out

so even if it’s now to become more a climate change / global boiling focus, it needs to remain a crime and zemiology one robustly in parallel as well

what CORE will consider and deliver

the CORE needs to strategise the castle & moat as well as the thinking-spaces and their architectures

our secrecy-positive spaces will be needed to protect our desired climate boiling people and outcomes

this is what i propose be our strategy from now on in:

• we should focus on creating an an impregnable theoretical, philosophical, practical and technological castle around the sweden-chosen big tech partner-local & regional partnership before moving out to other areas of endeavour and action — even at the risk of not doing as much for those in need as we might

• why? because you just HAVE to know you utterly CANNOT be undermined by anyone, before you reach out a hand to others however deserving

re precedents, we can follow the manhattan project, apollo moonshot, and darpa internet templates if we like

but i think we can learn from modern silicon valley strategy too:

• a flexible PLATFORM is the best research tool in the right hands

• out of which specific applications can be delivered, just as japanese car manufacturers first did with elements of a car

• example: separate workstreams for each element (eg dashboard design & functionality) identified as key, and then slotted whenever discretely ready in terms of their own timelines into what became new versions of the cars

• therefore, manufacturing a car isn’t a new car release every five years as in the olden days, but modulating and updating regularly

the intuition validation engine, then …?

do we go back to platform genesis and the raw READ.ME of the intuition validation engine? i think we do …

• a library of tools

• as already determined, a PLATFORM in order to enable ACCESS freely, not to tie in users to one software / hardware constitution or another

• equal sovereignty for all objects, whether people, code, or machines

as if we were talking, in fact, about creating software code in the shape of UN inalienable rights and charters, conventions and manifestos, and stuff with these kinds of discourses, as opposed to the more conventional laws and regulatory approaches parliaments and so forth generally prefer to come up with

and some would say this would lead to vague

i radically disagree

i would term it as being the “precisely ambiguous”:

• that is, an arts-based approach to real-world problem-solving

• a structure, but not one which deeply determines the kinds of outcomes

• something, instead, that will remain relevant and useful for as long as we do this: JUST like UN charters

in order for it to exist like this, it just needs to be considered for longer before — finally! — finalising its directives

🙂

but we will know when it is finalised

how? because it will be our eureka moment: it will just feel gobsmackingly RIGHT!

🙂

for sure …

mil williams, 7th august 2023, stockholm sweden
design philosophy, rationale

Next steps for #complexproblems …

“Because there is nothing that stops us more from achieving the impossible than by asking ‘how’. And nothing better to enable that impossible than focussing on the societal harm being committed over and over and over again … and then agreeing, of course, it’s now inconceivable to ignore it any more.”

Mil Williams, 6th August 2023, Stockholm Sweden

I’ve been meditating on next steps.

Background:

Usually in innovation circles, the person with the idea spends years trying to convince someone to fund its making, so then a client can be convinced it should be bought as solution which, actually, may not find a problem that needs it.

Better practice is to work closely with a potential client in these years, in order to bring to the table finally idea+client for funding to be arrived at: a problem identified first before a technology is made tangible.

This is why all my incessant thought-experimenting since 2016 …

I’m engaged these days in stopping the #putins of this world from ever getting a stranglehold over the countries and peoples I treasure, ever again. I want us to have more confidence, little by little, that there will exist a collective and shared future-present we can look forward to: in all aspects.

But I want us to solve a complex problem with complex thinking and outcomes. I don’t want us to use traditional startup tools which insist we must simplify before we can solve, and which then mean we inevitably lose sight of this complex problem’s essence:

• complexify.me

And:

• www.sverige2.earth/complexify-roadmap

I’m aiming high, it’s clear: it’s the only way. The stakes are just this: babies bleeding to death from shrapnel that punctures their apartment walls as they sleep. Not the rain of drops of beautiful nature but the rain of death of horrible men.

My objectives … which I’d like you to buy into also

This is what I want:

1. I want us to have tech architectures that enable us to prevent history repeating itself.

• omiwan.com/the-foundations

• thephilosopher.space

2. I want all citizens to become FEARless CITIZENS: it’s these sorts of citizens I want us to build.

• mils.page/phd

3. I want a security which believes also in a very human sense of safety too.

4. And I want ALL our law-enforcement and security agencies to become rigorously legal in all their actions … in everything they do, even when covertly:

• legalallways.com | www.secrecy.plus/law

What I believe in, then …

I believe in narrating inconvenient truths. It is my one foundation stone: the truth. I don’t believe in the relativism of post-modernism at all. The appalling and alleged “he says, she says” journalistic objectivity of organisations like the UK BBC leads to the fake news trumpeted by the likes of Trump, Farage, Johnson et al, as they achieve a ridiculous prominence with their ridiculous lies, via their being awarded equal dollops of public- and private-service airtime, whatever they assert.

How I want us to approach this “making it real” challenge

In the light of all the previous thought-experimenting, done precisely so as to avoid us building solutions for problems that don’t exist, I propose a different order to reach the goals I want us to deliver on one day:

Step 1: We start with the client, yes. But understood in their widest sense. We don’t ask what hurts them most and benefits us financially the easiest, with the quickest-to-invoice path we can think up. No. In the world the client inhabits, which is our world too when dealing with the complex problems I am asking us to debate, I want us to define and focus on what should’ve been solved generations ago. And most importantly, when we do:

“Kick into the grass ALL thoughts of HOW we might achieve such solutions. First, ONLY, consider ONLY whether the problems are hurting us all as badly as, for example, #ukraine is hurting everyone too.”

“Why?” you may ask.

“Because there is nothing that stops us more from achieving the impossible than by asking ‘how’. And nothing better to enable that impossible than focussing on the societal harm being committed over and over and over again … and then agreeing, of course, it’s now inconceivable to ignore it any more.”

Mil Williams, 6th August 2023, Stockholm Sweden

And it’s the client that provides the funding, not private investors.

Step 2: then we move to the research institutions, which will adapt to the requirements of a client that is not constituted out of their direct interests as money-generating institutions, amongst other important matters, but, rather, from the framework of the existent client that has emerged from Step 1, already agreed upon.

Step 3: if the client defined in Step 1 considers it safe for the overarching security and citizen-safety projects and workstreams under discussion to be opened up to wider investment, then we do so. However, big money has no national loyalties, as a general rule. So I suggest that the real due diligence that needs to be conducted will be on the provenance of the interested investors and their funding-pots, as well as their historical relationships — which will need to be audited closely, at start and on continuation throughout the projects and related workstreams — with countries and private interests that could easily be prejudiced by both the research I have already conducted to date as well as the work I would like for us to begin to deliver on together.

On societal forces which are actively destroying the agency of good human beings

In all this, there’s the impact of #neoterrorismontheindividual (#NoI)– a #tech-driven longitudinal #gaslighting which I suggest firmly by now is being used in really bad faith by the parties I want to exclude from our work, so they can shape and structure our societies in ways that benefit them deeply and prejudice democracy — that is, ourselves — profoundly:

• omiwan.com/the-humans

Linked to, then, from a few years ago, my draft #phd proposal in text form, and in respect of #NoI.

It’s not a project which needs doing now as a piece of research, but it should become — in a more developed form — an instruction manual whose lessons need to remain front-of-mind for anyone who works with us from now on in.

Because to destroy human agency — to give the impression one is predicting the random future when in truth one is scoping and delivering an artificially designed and beneficial future for limited and very private interests (NOT the same as prediction at all) — is actually evil: and it leads to #ukraine and a whole bunch more of actions we could all do well without.

Conclusion:

Meditating as I have been today, this is what I have come up with.

And I’m open to discussion now, of course. In the real world, that is, of compromise and even fudge. It’s better to do something good even if it enables, still, some evil — when it didn’t need to enable any. Because we can’t always do as well as we ought to: we don’t always do as well as we should.

Yet this shouldn’t stop us from trying, now should it?

Let’s shoot high. Can we?

Let’s …

• www.sverige2.earth/overview

definition, design philosophy, rationale

on weaponising penetration in tech and generative ai

meantime, the geneva convention, in the real-life world, expressly prohibits the power-plays that involve an aggressor weaponising their bodies against the aggressed in this way. so whilst #tech reserves the right, in order to defend us all, to penetrate the enemy with the tools the enemy habitually uses to penetrate our #tech, the real world and its legal framework consents to no such thing between humans. not even in times of war.

yet #tech is a tool with which humans act on humans. so where the difference, pray?

mil williams, 4th august 2023, stockholm sweden

background

#generativeai is about penetrating knowledge and benefitting from such penetration.

right now, artists and creators — also more generally, those who equally are being penetrated thus — are attempting to fend off such acts of intimate intrusion into their life’s work by taking the owners and developers of such tools to court for #copyrightinfringement, #copyrighttheft, and much more: because if they’d listen to me, even #plagiarism. why not?

4th august 2023: monica sjöö, moderna museet, stockholm sweden

the thesis of this post

we’ve just established, then, that this kind of #ai is essentially analogous to the dynamics of rape: one that inserts itself into the very existence — the profoundest and sometimes most mysterious existence — of the inserted.

#tech even uses the term “penetration” and the verb “to penetrate” when it talks about bad actors — or good, as sometimes against a common enemy such penetrators are seen to be.

meantime, the geneva convention, in the real-life world, expressly prohibits the power-plays that involve an aggressor weaponising their bodies against the aggressed in this way. so whilst #tech reserves the right, in order to defend us all, to penetrate the enemy with the tools the enemy habitually uses to penetrate our #tech, the real world and its legal framework consents to no such thing between humans. not even in times of war.

yet #tech is a tool with which humans act on humans. so where the difference, pray?

really … where?

more historically speaking

more widely, and more historically, #it too has always employed such penetrative approaches.

an example: the software i am using to write this post says “insert”: why not, more gently, “add”? (it’s anecdotal, of course: but even if you’re now just beginning to “wonder whether” … in my mind it’s a kind of progress for us all.)

there has therefore existed, in such #it spaces, no instinctively familiar place for those more easily and more usually penetrated — often quite against their will (see the rates of abuse against particularly women and children in any culture, if you doubt my position on this) — to begin to develop a different kind of set of technologies: and then, perhaps, as a result, outcomes for us all as well.

how this makes me feel as a man and therefore potential aggressor

i think this is wrong. we need to defend ourselves, mainly against bad actors who mainly are men, with the same tools: that is true. just because we have the right gender policies doesn’t mean that putin’s awful awful version russia, stealthy china’s current approaches, and incomprehensible north korea’s dark hackers will — all of a sudden! — stop penetrating us.

but whilst the single, where not singular, focus of a set of tools to anticipate and prevent such intimate intrusion probably does need a mindset where intimate intrusion is second nature to be effective, the big problems — the #complexproblems i discuss in the slide-deck linked to below — will never be solved efficiently by mindsets which think firmly that intrusion and its prevention are all that, under it all, matter in the final analysis.

• example complexify.me roadmap | on using #neurodiverse #tech #architectures to solve #complexproblems beyond traditional #startup ecosystems’ capabilities to deliver

what i suggest we do next

to our quiver of tools against the bad actors who we know are out there and need to be deviously penetrated in return, we surely ought to add (NOT insert …):

1. new startup approaches which redirect us to contemplating that which needs resolving whilst being enabled to remain complex in all their fundaments:

• complexify.me | complexifylab.com

• www.sverige2.earth/unified (business model canvas)

and new philosophical approaches to enable different brains to work much better together in harmony and productive outcomes:

• www.secrecy.plus/fire

2. new procurement and tendering processes which don’t lock out the innovations and inventions that those who run such processes are unaware of: something far more explorative therefore; much less prescriptive than we’ve had unchanged since the industrial revolution at least.

3. and finally:

a) an absolute embracing of #neurodivergent philosophies and thought-patterns as the rule, not the exception;

b) a move — also! — to assessing not diagnosing such skillsets (ie NOT seeing them as things to be considered responding well to being ever diagnosed as disorders — they simply aren’t!); and

c) firmly seeing anything that claims to be #neurotypical as simply one more kind of #neurodiverse state of mind. but not representative, either, of any other state of parallel #neurodiversity.

summary

this is my opinion: but it’s also a point of view. it’s my voice, above all: not aggressively expressed at all. i’ve experienced what it is to be diverse in a world which DEMANDS conformity — and what’s more, mainly controlled by the gender i am myself. and even so, it whitewashes its inability to truly embrace all humans as equally deserving of the powers some have to shape this world.

the three points expressed above are, therefore, my roadmap to enable us to escape this quagmire. because it’s led to global boiling; the throwaway economy; and the “cut-down virgin forests [sic]” policies with a pure brutality that delivers on consummate insanity.

my voice, then, is one forged out of auto-ethnography: that is, personal experience. so of course i would believe it would work, too.

why my assertions in this respect: if we become capable of returning our future-present civilisations to their twin building blocks, the sovereignty of the collective built firmly on the sovereignty of the individual, very slowly, but hopefully surely, we shall begin to move from what we could call a fundamentally and systemically, where not deliberatedly, #neurotypical #it and #generativeai towards a properly diverse and inclusive technology landscape, capable — maybe! — of even saving the species.

wdyt?

• www.sverige2.earth/overview

• www.sverige2.earth/example

definition, design philosophy, rationale

on the self-published #phd — and what i do next

i’ve just had a brilliant idea.

some years ago, not long ago, i showed my first #phd proposal — #neoterrorismontheindividual (NoI) — to a consultant who worked with the #europeanunion and/or the #europeancommission:

when i finished briefly explaining it to her, she flatly rejected the possibility that anyone anywhere would allow me to deliver on it.

probably because one of its main theses is that #darkfigure — what i now prefer to call #neocrime — is preserved by the good as well as the bad in society in order to allow them to commit crimes and engage in taking advantage of loopholes on both sides of the #law, without fear of being caught or exposed to the light of public disapproval:

i want to stop this. more so now than before. and now for a really practical reason: not touchy-feely, goody two-shoes any more (all of which it’s true does characterise me on occasions).

we now have #russia’s unpardonable invasion of #ukraine before us: anyone with two or three little grey cells, or more, can work out that it happened because criminality is embedded everywhere by the actions of the #zemiological: that is, what we all call loopholes and generally consider unstoppable.

only it isn’t. we simply never really tried on an equal killing-field:

and so this is where i begin to sense that my clear understanding of what’s right and permissible and what’s wrong and impermissible in life is so sharp and developed that i might have difficulties finding an institution prepared to support me — even in this second #phd proposal i am now starting to develop:

so you know what? i’m a trained editor and publisher: trained by one of the greatest spanish universities and publishing houses, both. that is, i have a university master in the subject.

it’s time, i think, i put such training to good use.

i’m going to self-scope, develop, write and publish my own #phd. it won’t exactly be one, of course: no vivas and stuff; no supervisors or anything. but the web world of accessible information in need of brutal sifting is now cheap. as are the rapid app development tools to make imagineering become tangible:

so my next step? i shall find the structures and lists of competencies and goals and marking processes from some august university or similar research organisation … and then, as i intended to all along, use the research that is delivered from day one in a #praxis-based arc, format and shape to begin to create the continuing defensible go-to-market positions my related company and commercialisation project will need, when it begins — i hope soon — to deliver on the wider #gutenbergofintuitivethinking “printing-press”.

yep. this is the brilliant idea!

and then the outcome of all that will be the global paradigm-shift i want: a second printing-press that changes the dynamics of society as profoundly as did the first, when the church finally was toppled from its overbearing control of all recorded content in the societies of the time.

cool, huh? #phd-level research goes self-publishing …

and so if you can’t join them, beat them!

🙂

i’m really happy today. because there’s always a way. always.

and so today, then, i unlocked the key. i found what i’d been looking for: the final piece.

when everyone around you denies you your rights, ensure you never forget you are.

and however hard it becomes, remember that you also are a sovereign individual. all of us were born this way. it’s only other humans that make it different from what it must be.

footnote to this post:

i’d really rather work with others, even now: but it must, now, be on my conditions. this doesn’t mean only my conditions. but it does mean i have conditions i will not give up on. and if you now say i shall deliver no #praxis-based #phd with commercialising mission anywhere in the world — because, basically, you will stop it from happening — i shall self-publish: i really shall.

all for the moment.

more later, i’m sure.

aside, definition, design philosophy, rationale

My new #phd online hub: an overview

Introduction

Good morning all.

I’m preparing for a #phd proposal I would like to submit:

• mils.page/phd

A previous approach

A shortened version of a different but related matter from a few years ago — my first delivery of a #phd research-level roadmap — can be found in the form of a slide-deck here:

• omiwan.com/the-humans

Other new and historical ideas

There’s plenty of other material on the historical, current and brand-new hub already. An initial objective-set dating a year or so ago now can be found in the gallery below:

“Building the FEARless CITIZEN” … to deliver #NoFutureUkraines

Meantime, here we have my most recent strategy to eliminate the scourge of legal societal harm (that is, loopholes or — more academically speaking — #zemiology): “Building the FEARless CITIZEN”, so that we ensure #NoFutureUkraines …

On a mental distress sourced in the environment

Keeping in mind that mental distress — ie a human dysfunctionality which has its roots in a sick environment, rather than a mental illness with its location inside the individual — is obviously on the rise, we need to operate on two fronts:

1. Change the environments.

2. Change ourselves.

And it’s clear, also, that both actions will serve each other: if we change the environment, our wellbeing will obviously improve. And if we change ourselves to be this FEARless I suggest, to be FEARless citizens in everything we do from now on in that is, the environment automagically changes, too.

Here’s that #phd online hub link again:

• mils.page/phd

Comments on- and off-post, as always, always welcome …

And have a really safe day!

🙂

definition, rationale

why #bigtech really wants to destroy human agency (part the second) (or more on the “european HUMANISING union”)

someone once argued that it was better to be hated for what one is than loved for what one is not.

as with many of these nicely turned phrases, the premise is necessarily incomplete.

and, as with my projects on #intuitionvalidation, we face the same falsity of dichotomy, this time from the #it- and #ai-#tech industries.

they argue it’s either humans or machines. they argue there’s no alternative future to the one they argue we must be utterly horrified about. and they say, ultimately, human goalposts can never be moved:

• www.secrecy.plus/hmagi

examining a false premise

yet let’s examine this premise more closely. the coaching industry makes today’s generations of humans measurably better than previous ones in all sorts of business and related fields. sports science gets the very same species to hit higher and higher physical and mental records every year, both on the track & pitch and off whilst training. artists paint with ever more astonishing technique: paints and brushstrokes and digital wisdoms history has truly never imagined before (when, that is, #ai isn’t stealing their #intellectualproperty). then, actors become figuratively, literally, and visually more adept at tugging our emotions and telling new truths. and finally, writers deliver stories we never thought at all possible, and sometimes in volumes with quality we never considered practical.

in all manner of technologies then — high and low both (a pencil of hyper-realist art, after all, can be considered a technology, too (and perhaps any of its uses should be considered thus)) — humans ARE having their goalposts moved amazingly. in all the sectors mentioned we are overcoming our previous selves: but not aggressively, not competitively. in grand solidarity, first and foremost; solidarity above all, even when competing against each other. solidarity where the professional and focussed amateur know the work that’s being put in re such outcomes.

examining the lies — there’s no other word, unfortunately — of the majority of #it and #ai promoters

now let us examine #it and #ai. in none of the above examples are humans made less relevant. in the vast majority of incidences of the industries of #ai and #it i now debate we humans are being purposefully and choicefully automated out of choice and purpose. they say change is inevitable. they don’t say its nature isn’t. but it isn’t. and that’s a real problem.

we need to be clear: it’s easy money that’s driving the desire of #ai and #it promotors to destroy so massively the human agency that makes life worth living.

because the power the owners of #it and #ai companies wield means that their choices become ours, even though in other sectors they still ain’t been our choices.

changing humanity for the better by using machines to augment humans not automate their owners’ wallets

in an earlier post today i discussed how we had progressed from world war to the european economic community to the european union: soldiers … traders … humans once more .. and perhaps humans in a way that increasingly never before.

it should be rebranded to the #ehu, you know: the “european HUMANISING union”. not just for standing firm against russia in ukraine; not just because war in the rest of europe is generally inconceivable; not only because #industry5 and the properly #circulareconomy are being delivered faster in #europe than anyone cares to elsewhere, and certainly in better faith than in other places; but also because the battlecry that now, clearly, was #gdpr during its first launching and moment of truth is moving us all to a generational shift in #it and related.

remember #search? it was the last time the big #techcorporations successfully ripped off copyright owners. generative #ai — at least in the european HUMANISING union i have just conceptualised, and in this post-#gdpr period — will not be getting such an easy ride.

this i can promise you.

and it makes me absolutely overjoyed.

relevant online whitepaper:

• www.sverige2.earth/overview | on delivering happy clever societies