“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:
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.
2. I want all citizens to become FEARless CITIZENS: it’s these sorts of citizens I want us to build.
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:
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 …
mil's page 