global security – mil's page

aside, definition, design philosophy, rationale

“On people called #melians who have no regrets”

In truth, whilst change IS inevitable — just as #siliconvalley and its dreadful hangers-on have universally, dogmatically and terrifyingly proclaimed for over half a century — its NATURE never automagically was. It’s just a fact, this: just a fact, too. For #bigtech is an only “half-the-story #tech”. And only ever has been.

Mil Williams, 27th April 2025, Arlanda Airport, Stockholm, Sweden,

It’s what I said a while ago.

There’s no courage involved in not feeling fear. And therefore no virtue whatsoever in being fearless.

There’s only virtue in doing something despite the need to overcome.

And one other thing I’ve learnt:

Not everyone should like you. If they did, you’d probably be doing something wrong.

Not wrong in itself. Wrong because in the first instance, in my experience, when you have an idea and are NOT stubborn enough not to have your course changed, it’s an error of crass proportions if and when you ultimately fail to persist in transforming the world, particularly when you ideas manifestly deserved to.

And sometimes, maybe often, we do fail to transform what’s around us with our thoughts and imagination precisely because, equally, we want to be liked: I mean, that is, that we tend to prefer to think not being liked is a sign we’re on the incorrect path.

But I now think the reverse. This is what I think. In two parts:

1. It’s always the bad guys who first see the dangers and implications — for them and their easy business models — of different and obstinately held ideas to their preferred future-present: the one they considered, out of their absolute sense of entitlement, absolutely theirs forever. Ideas like the ones, never necessarily originally but for sure always firmly, I’ve continued to propound over the years.

2. It’s always the good guys who last see the virtues and positives — for them and their terribly oppressed democratic communities — of different and obstinately held ideas to their assumed future-present: the one they were told was a result of inevitable change I mean, and absolutely NOT theirs forever.

In truth, whilst change IS inevitable — just as #siliconvalley and its dreadful hangers-on have universally, dogmatically and terrifyingly proclaimed for over half a century — its NATURE never automagically was. It’s just a fact, this: just a fact, too. For #bigtech is an only “half-the-story #tech”. And only ever has been.

This is why, when you want to deliver transformation, you have to accept you won’t be liked.

Firstly, the bad guys won’t ever do anything but hate you with their casually polite, practised and breezily easy business smiles.

And this will happen for perhaps the first five years.

And their goal is to break you, and make you stumble, and then dispirit you to the extent, perhaps, you kill yourself.

But then they have a problem. If they sense there will, after all, be a “next five years”, they realise the sword they wanted all that time for you to fall on no longer usefully, or at least reliably, exists.

So they will try to get closer to you and maybe even persuade you that all the while the smiles they sent your way with minimal financial breadcrumbs attached were actually, all the time in question, offerings of real dough.

And some of us out here give in at this point and take the money and run. And then the bad guys close down the ideas, and life continues to get worse for everyone else. Despite our ideas. Despite their coming originally into being. Despite what might have been.

The thing is … this is the thing. If you are stubborn … not original at all … just irreversibly firm in your preferred outcomes, even as fabulously flexible in your means and ways of getting there … well … you may end up concluding what I did when I got to the second and third and fourth and fifth “five years”: you only need to be liked by one group of people.

That’s all it ever takes.

Just one group is needed.

This group being?

The good guys who one day will realise that the #meliandialogue can be upturned: the islands of the world can beat — hands-down — the totalitarians.

Islands?

Places where we continue to understand that once in our histories we built fortresses in order to expand outwards with security and safety first and foremost. And that this was a good idea. And that this was the best idea. And that this is our next best step now.

And then we shall be … NOT #athens, ever … no. Not that. Not the #valley that causes so many tears. Never that. We never could be.

Rather, people called #melians who no longer shall have any regrets.

definition, design philosophy, rationale

on a blended approach to #totalsurveillance

background

i read a meme a while back which said:

it takes ten years ramming a new idea down people’s throats for them to get it.

i started what would become the #intuitionvalidationengine back when a discovery interview with a #liverpool university. in the middle of this interview i came up with the phrase #industrialisationoforiginalthought. i didn’t know, then, the roots of this occurrence.

i do know now.

my first university qualification, of the three i now have, was a ba hons in film & literature, back in the early 1980s. i realised a few years ago now that this was the very source of my thinking around #intuitionvalidation.

film, until #generativeai, was an example of how, despite the temptations, movie technologists chose to make a tech that enhanced and expanded human beings, rather than diminished and automated them out of relevance.

the microphone made the voice more powerful; the camera, the eye more beady-eyed; the film language of close-up and long-shot making the actor able to express their feelings with more impact; and even the stage and a wider mise-en-scene serving to extend the ability for great actors to deepen their expressiveness using the surroundings designed specifically around them.

that, then, all a clear example of the #industrialisationoforiginalthought.

and with that, a direct precursor to the #intuitionvalidationengine, and what then became #platformgenesis:

• gb2earth.com/tools | gb2earth.com/pgtps

if we take 2016 as my baseline of these later ideas, though not where the ideas originally connect back to, of these ten years i allude us to, ramming a new idea down everyone’s throats, i’m in year 8 of the aforementioned decade.

what next …

i’d like now to make something firmly tangible of all this.

and this, for two reasons and two reasons only:

1. under the current #totalsurveillance philosophies, 9/11, putin’s russia, and hamas all flourished. i’m not saying those who promoted these solutions, where machines have humans as extensions of their processes and procedures, wilfully ignored an alternative i’ve been proposing for a number of years now: that is, humans with machines as extensions of themselves. but if it does continue to be rejected, the ignoring of them does become wilful:

2. the second reason is more personal. i’d like to think that some good people at the highest levels of #tech begin to recognise that perhaps everyone — all of us, that is, without exception — should have considered other options sooner.

9/11 was a horrendous event we considered absolutely singular and, thankfully, unrepeatable.

but then came along the utterly illegitimate invasion of ukraine by putin’s russia, where we still even today — some of us, that is — choose to see him as a man who stumbles into one misadventure after another. only this isn’t true at all. he’s a horrible nonconformist whose awful capacity to think out of the box is left untouched by our machine-driven teams and ways of working.

and so, finally, 9/11 does repeat after all. with, you can’t say no, hamas’s dreadful attack on israeli and palestinian people, both. and under the very same philosophy of #totalsurveillance which didn’t succeed as it could’ve done the first two times round either.

my ask

so what do i say? what do i want? what can i get reasonably from you?

what can we all, ultimately, achieve together?

it’s not #totalsurveillance that’s the problem: it’s a #totalsurveillance which upscales exclusively machines over humans for every security, law-enforcement, and espionage process ever.

it’s the philosophy and implementation, not the need or the instinct to protect and defend absolutely: because the latter is absolutely spot-on. meantime, 9/11, ukraine, and now hamas surely question the former in ways we never cared to in the past twenty years.

this is why i am now looking proactively and openly for a powerful and paradigm-upturning partner who can provide the runway to get this blended approach to #totalsurveillance all underway: an approach which i have proposed with so many challenges to my own person all along.

and the aim of these ideas?

simple, tbh.

no more 9/11s, invasions like that of ukraine, or attacks like that of hamas on israeli and palestinian peoples both.

i want to save us all from future pain.

that is the gain i most want out of my legacy.

that is what i want my ideas around #totalsurveillance to begin to deliver: a more secure world which feels, also, so much safer …

definition, design philosophy, rationale

NUESTRA huída hacia delante

I lived in Spain for around sixteen years. My Spanish is quite good; but I’m not a native in the language and never learnt it formally.

But the poem below, for some reason today, I felt obliged to write in Spanish: that is, castellano. Because there are a number of sometimes quite different languages the Spanish state and peoples communicate in. I know only castellano.

Mainly, in the street — and then receiving correction via an assiduous daily reading over the years of a linguistically ferocious Spanish newspaper called El País.

I wrote the poem below in response to a post that came my way an hour or so ago on LinkedIn. So the poem is dedicated to the man who posted that post, and made me want to write the poem.

Comments, as always, welcome always.

NUESTRA huída hacia delante 

sí lo es 
una huída 
hacia delante 
sin querer en absoluto 
y sin preocuparse por nada 

porque es hora de ver 
si tienes razones 
por pensar 
si hay personas e instituciones 
que te quieren 

y que quedan -como debieran- 
para que quererles 
a su vez y de vuelta 
sea sensato 
o no

porque he llegado 
a la conclusión 
que necesito
estar sólo 
con gente de buena fe

NO las que te hacen reír ...
pero entonces nada más que desde sus estupideces 
y desde sus más profundas idioteces
donde crecen sólo sus mentiras
cuando no las tetas de sus nenas

por arte 
del instagram
o del tiktok 
de las narices 
y de los gobernantes chinos que sólo te miran 

porque sólo quiero estar ya
con personas buenas
quienes saben ya de mi mundo
desde su interior:
para que otras explicaciones ya no son necesarias 

y porque ellos también
lo han experimentado y sufrido 
en el presente
igual 
que en el pasado 

y entonces si eso significa 
que a la gran mayoría
(que solo parece 
que sea la mayoría y -desde luego-
constituida en nada de "gran") 

me veo obligado a dar mi espalda
es porque tengo ganas
no de dar la espalda a nadie 
pero en su lugar 
mirar con firmeza de frente 

a caras como la tuya:
es decir 
a otra clase 
completamente 
de gente 

gente que sólo cree en un mundo
donde el jugo que se derrita 
no son las sangres 
de la población mundial entera 
ni de sus cuerpos frágiles 

llenos de las bondades 
por encima 
de cualquier abuso 
cometido por vicio 
y por medio de la violencia corporal 

de todos los hombres 
y mujeres 
autoritarios ...
pero para que -de otro modo 
bien distinto y precioso-

lo que echamos 
no es nada de menos 
a nada que hemos valorado
desde hace siempre 
como lo mejor de todo ser humano 

ni que hayamos querido derretir   
los jugos de nuestras vidas 
en campos de guerra 
y en apartamentos donde bombas
despiertan al bebé recién nacido  

para que pueda morir en el acto 
en charcos de su propia sangre 
con los cuerpos de sus hermanos enfrente
proclamando el adiós cruel 
de los violentos tan poderosos ... 

pues NO: 
no ... 
no ...  
no ... 
no paso más tiempo con gente así 

no es ésta la vida que elijo consentir:
y estar con la gentuza 
que sí prefieren consentirla
con las sábanas rojas de esos niños
todos los días de las semanas tan agredidas 

NO es donde voy a quedarme:
porque ya pido más a la vida 
y no me quedo con el lujo
de beber el mejor vino por un lado  
y derretir la humanidad por el otro 

como HAMAS nunca JAMÁS 
debiera haber concebido 
y ya no digo lo que pudo llevar a cabo
porque ellos sí han sabido siempre 
todo lo que han hecho y han querido hacer 

y así -en profundo recuerdo 
de ukraine y de 9/11-
damos la vuelta al verso anterior:
bebemos todos YA 
de las humanidades que más nos hacen nobles  

y derretimos únicamente 
a partir de ahora 
os ruego -por favor-
sólo los vinos 
de mas esplendor 

de los viñedos con más sabiduría  
y que nos sean capaces de bendecir BIEN
con sus alegrías 
de amores bien vividos 
y de muchos ciudadanos y ciudadanas viviendo ahora 

que deben luchar con una ferocidad 
que corresponde SÓLO 
a los que han intentado por todos los medios 
buscar otros caminos por esos medios 
e incluso cuando no queremos pelear así en absoluto 

porque cuando la guerra te toca a ti
tienes sólo dos opciones:
ninguna es fácil 
pero sólo una conduce 
a una muestra de lo que es firmemente mantenerse humano

y puedes ceder en todo por supuesto 
y quedar con lo que te dan si eso
o puedes luchar 
para otro futuro 
bien distinto 

y aunque yo sé lo que es para mí
y -ciertamente siempre será así-
no puedo ni debo definirlo para ti ya
porque ser un humano es eso:
la elección de cada uno ... elección bien propia 

pero lo que sí reservo -sin sentirme mal-
es el derecho a decir a la fecha de hoy 
y la de mañana 
y el año que viene
y desde mis escritos 

que quizás durante cientos de años 
pueda que perduren 
o -a lo mejor- solamente 
en las mentes de muy poco gente 
y a lo mejor ni eso ... ni eso mi amor 

pero a decir la verdad
me da igual ya
porque lo único que quiero 
de la vida que me queda 
en los años venideros (y espero llenos de amor)

es encontrarme con mis gentes
y NO con sangres encharcándose
y ni de hombres ahorcándose ...
pero sí -y eso sin duda- 
con mujeres y hombres tiernos 

capaces de vivir la vida 
correctamente y de manera noble 
incluso cuando 
nos han tocado los campos 
de la inhumanidad más espeluznante

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.

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

The Last Mile of Creative Criminality: the Key to #NoFutureUkraines

OUR end-to-end thinking. The creative crimefighting we now need: bringing together the complementary and existent interests and skills of military, security and law-enforcement into one macro-team of defenders of the species.
Mil Williams, 2nd July 2023, Stockholm Sweden

On eliminating the Petri dish of Putin & Co’s creatively criminal strategies towards a European and wider longitudinal dislocation

Introduction

This is the current law-enforcement, security and military situation as I see it:

1. Organised crime funds Putin & Co’s Russia by embedding itself in local communities across Europe and other regions: it’s effectively the last mile of creative criminality:

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/22/uk-organised-crime-can-police-catch-up-national-crime-agency-lynne-owens

https://crimehunch.com/neocrime

https://omiwan.com/the-humans

2. Organised crime is then the deep connector of glocal (global <-> local) reach. It makes it possible for top-down and bottom-up approaches to moving illegal money around and in respect of its generation, capture, and delivery to easily acquire an almost impossible to unpick synthesis of seamless functioning.

3. It also allows Putin & Co to longitudinally gather data — on local turfs and from great distances — on trends, movements and rising individuals in democratic systems that might all prove threats to the established order he and his kind continue to strategise in order to achieve and sustain.

This is why I argue that in order to develop a capacity to prevent another #ukraine from ever being contemplated, never mind delivered on, we need to create human-enhancing technologies that empower good human beings like ourselves to fight back with a “War & Peace (II)” approach:

That is to say, for a change our kind of war on our sort of terms: but even so, permanent and ongoing; and then again, our kind of peace on our sort of terms: and even so, permanent and ongoing.

What will the process leading to these preferred outcomes consist of?

1. Identifying sources of power and wealth which to date could have contributed to #ukraine not happening and which, nevertheless, have chosen either a) to effectively sit on the sidelines and watch the region burn; or b) have proactively consented to and created the environments and frameworks which have led directly to #ukraine: nation-states; large transnational corporations and others with huge reserves of cash and wealth of various kinds; zemiological actors of multiple kinds.

2. With this information to hand, we robustly and firmly ringfence these actors future participation in:

a) our own future human-interfacing and enabling tech tools and platforms; and

b) the strategic and longitudinal reconstruction of a wider Western democracy.

I suggest, above all, that as a general principle we do NOT use the often self-interested advisory and consulting processes of tech and related corporate organisations when scoping, developing and configuring the natures of the architectures of our proposed new software and hardware architectures and frameworks.

Instead, from our own university and other research institutions we build up teams of our own consulting and advisory specialists consisting of human-related and tech-related researchers both — as well as others who may be chosen to be upskilled in such skillsets, in the collective democratic future-present we wish to forge anew — in order to create a permanent future-present capability in such processes.

The proposal would then employ big tech and related SIMPLY AND ONLY as implementers of, never participants in, our secret sauces.

After all, you cannot invite into the kitchen of future Western stability those organisations which have actively collaborated in the poisoning of Western democratic ways of acting and engaging with complex problems — either by default and their sitting on the sidelines, or through an affirmation on their part of criminal activity by their working alongside and continuing to gladly invoice such organisations in full knowledge of their ongoing zemiology:

http://complexify.me

We can however, I now firmly believe, use such corporations as simple extensions of fully formed projects which reach them with absolutely all the necessary specifications and requirements ready drawn-up by the aforementioned bespoke teams of OUR own researchers and in-house advisory & consulting experts.

To summarise

If we follow the above path, in this way:

a) we won’t lose the agility of large corporates’ manifest capability to deliver massively on clear specifications when everything is duly finalised and competently in possession of its always necessary roadmap;

b) but, equally, we don’t allow them to move us in the direction of solutions which continue to be optimal for their bottom lines but not for a European and wider security and safety environment:

https://crimehunch.com

https://citizenhunch.com

https://www.secrecy.plus/why

https://www.secrecy.plus/hmagi

https://www.sverige2.earth/example

http://complexify.me

https://www.sverige2.earth/unified

c) nor will we lose the element of absolute internal and external secrecy we need if, in any reasonable way, we are to successfully fight back against Putin & Co’s longitudinal strategising in favour of the sustenance of his own brand of creative criminality and its related Petri dish.

Because it’s time to break into unusable pieces that serve zero purpose the Petri dish of Putin & Co that enables local-turf criminality from feeding — ultimately — into the pockets of their aspirations to global dislocation and domination.

Because it all starts from that neighbourhood you live in, where you enjoy shooting the breeze with the man you know, for sure, to be a gangster.

And it all ends in the bloodied baby’s cot in a Kyiv apartment block.

Let’s think as creatively as the criminals, for a change

OUR end-to-end thinking. The creative crimefighting we now need: bringing together the complementary and existent interests and skills of military, security and law-enforcement into one macro- and hyper-team of defenders of the species.

Just that.

And so then, finally, by both scoping and using new tech architectures which Putin & Co cannot bribe themselves into acquiring under any circumstances, we make it increasingly difficult for #ukraine to happen ever again.

https://www.secrecy.plus | for human-expanding and upskilling #secrecypositive software architectures and hardware

aside, definition, design philosophy, rationale

they called us pirates all those years ago, but #bigtech is the truly zemiological community of today

my ex- has two indian friends she used to teach spanish to. they lived close to where we did: a married couple.

we were invited to theirs on occasions, and would go over enthusiastically of course, for a full evening repast with other guests we might or might not have met before. they were immensely gracious guests, were her indian friends.

one time, we were introduced to what turned out to be a techie guy: an executive type, though.

yes … not a software engineer or anything like this.

i was clear i’d been invited by apple via the brother of the bebo founder, at a meetup in the wellcome foundation cafe some years before in london, to come onboard.

this time, the techie guy basically spun the story that all tech corps controlled the next ten years of tech … all tech corps. this wasn’t an apple thing, let’s be clear. this was all of them, including apple. (he did assert he knew the apple case from inside.)

so. big tech would rarely launch useful stuff, just for the good of the world. it would do so when a series of conditions were met.

for example:

• what — for them — was all-too-existent tech, but invisible and, indeed, unknown to the outside world, wouldn’t end up being revealed to anyone unless there was a sound bottom-line reason. they wouldn’t even float the concept publicly (that is, telling the idea but not saying they had developed it …)

• neither did they ever seem keen to express the desire, or be driven by the need, to apply such apparently non-existent tech imaginatively for the whole species’ benefit, before, that is, its time arrived as per their aforementioned ten-year calendarisations of the related monetisation opportunities and timelines

remember google glass?

research the year it appeared: go on.

dr steve mann invented it and used his own from 1984, if my memory serves me right:

https://mannlab.com/eyetap

google then had to finally retire its own consumer version from sale because of “invasion of privacy” concerns from the wider market (and perhaps, also, the wider mass media): and this, even when the version sold had an unnecessarily large and obviously clumpy camera.

do you think they weren’t using it far more covertly way before they launched a consumer version?

do you think they stopped using their own privately covert version after the consumer version was boxed off and deactivated?

of course they used it way before, covertly and more, on everyone.

of course they wouldn’t stop using such a powerful surveillance — and counter-surveillance — tool.

like exxon in the 1970s hiding the research that predicted THEN to the tenth of a degree the global warming (not climate change, ffs) NOW incurred due directly to their fossil fuels:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

well. big tech behaves in exactly the same way. it has massive solutions: it had them decades ago. its bottom-line doesn’t need them now, though.

and it certainly DOESN’T want to democratise genius, as i have argued increasingly our species needs us to aim at doing, if we want to survive the cataclysmic climate and other challenges encroaching more and more our daily experiences of life:

https://platformgenesis.com | see the slides at the top of this article for more detail of #platformgenesis

so what do we do? if big tech refuses to change its ways 180 degrees — and it will refuse, i assure you — what do we do?

we do it ourselves!

we do it for the military and security, but also for a citizen force which uses sousveillance not to control the state but work with it.

we create relevant software constitutions to achieve it. we use the genius resident deep down in every human being to deliver unpredictable thought, predictably.

and ultimately, we will eliminate ALL loopholes.

and we will eliminate a wider zemiology from every community.

and we will cut back the dried-out deadwood of our societies’ most creatively criminal poachers.

we will make the woods of every community — whether professional or geographical — good again: all of them.

that is, make the timbers of a civilised society no longer anything to be shivered about by anyone.

look:

in sweden you already invented a cctv which is useful but, at the same time, doesn’t need to store the images to deliver law-enforcement support.

it’s this kind of shameless thinking — shamelessly free! — that i hanker after, and now really really do need.

this is why from here: from sweden. exactly this.

yes …

and i appreciate, too, that everyone needs to participate.

but i am angry at big tech for giving up on the species.

and i know how capable it is of getting into projects in order to mess around with them for defensive reasons and purposes: to protect above all the interests of its blessed bottom-line over the interests of, for example, war-torn victims.

the fortnite founder event in salford i attended some years ago proved this, when i was informed by an attendee that basically my idea of #hmagi had been bought up and closed down from another bright mind years before:

https://www.secrecy.plus/hmagi

so hear this please, and believe me: i speak from evidence not prejudice.

i see things and then make connections of a precise and painful nature which few others — very few — either care to, or can’t, see.

and i am here to change the world, so it becomes the world we ALL deserve — even the bad guys as they stand: because, after all, maybe i am wrong.

maybe i am.

maybe, after all, we may all be redeemable …

definition, rationale

when #secrecypositive tools were turned long ago against their creators …

i’ve described the idea of “mil’s theorem” before:

“If, in an almost infinitely malleable digital world, I can imagine a new kind of criminal activity via the limited intellectual and financial resources I have access to, others with far more of both will already be doing what I imagined. I don’t, therefore, need to provide more evidence than that to be able to demonstrate it’s happening and it exists.”

let’s take the above theorem one more time then.

the definition, in my #whirled and your #world, of #neocrime having become this:

crimehunch.com/neocrime | an updated understanding of the 19th century concept of “dark figure”

now then: if we accept my argument for argument’s sake, that in almost infinitely malleable digital we only have to intuitively and creatively think up new criminal activity in terms of its “whats” and “hows” (“who” and “when” remaining the preserve always of the machines) in order to be evidencing their existence, today i bring a new one to the table:

“let’s imagine that communities of professional praxis exist in #espionage, too. just like journalists who communicate outwith their employer-spaces with other journalists; just like security people and bus drivers acknowledge the presence of the nominal ‘opposition’ with a tip of the cap or a thumbs-up … just like any profession where specialised skillsets bring humans together with humans who are like them because of their knowledge-sets more than the allegiances they are paid to maintain …

imagine the above, then, in #spycraft in particular; and so imagine over the years that a network out of sight of the employers themselves has grown up exponentially, where — using tools i nowadays sustain firmly have been developed to operate in the areas of #neocrimes and #darkfigure (supposedly on the side of the good gals and guys, too) — agents commonly communicate with each other using #secrecypositive (and NOT #totalsurveillance-compliant as i would prefer) environments and architectures, in order to basically scratch each other’s backs at the expense of broader citizen and state interests.

remember “mil’s theorem”: if i can simply think it up, someone else more powerful and monied than me already did long ago.

but here’s the thing: it’s possible the field operatives might be doing such things but it’s also possible that in 99 percent of cases out of deep ingrained senses of honour and responsibility (and why not? patriotism too …) they’ve chosen over the years not to. even when they could. (some of us still exist, you know.)

so here’s another #neocrime-ism: what if it wasn’t the operatives who worked behind democracy for their own self-enrichment — or maybe even global domination — but, instead, their bosses …?

not one and all. not even all that many. but enough to tip the balance over the years between #ukraine NEVER happening and #russia being given an under-the-counter carta blanca to proceed as it would wish, and always wanted.”

ok. that’s the last bit of “mil’s theorem” theorising for today.

enough, right? and maybe understandably insulting for many at that.

listen up before you get utterly irritated with me. what i’m doing here is using a public space as if it were a #secrecypositive space. i’ve reached a moment in my life where i realise what was done to me in 2003 can’t be done again. since then, i’ve studied #criminaljustice at master’s level and have a whole battery of logical tools and legal principles to defend myself. and so i’m feeling fairly impregnable — and will continue to do so unless someone actually, literally, wipes me off the face of the planet.

but assuming the latter won’t happen … what if #secrecypositive spaces have now been turned against the people who invented them? and not me thinking now? but them, having built decades ago? because when you create a weapon of destruction you ALWAYS consider how its corresponding shield might need to look …

so what if the guys and gals who did this technology all those years ago as i now surmise were good people who defend our security and safety every day? and what if the bad gals and guys are now abusing savagely — to the extent of enabling #ukraine AT LEAST — such architectures and platforms to their own ends?

what if … that?

definition, design philosophy, rationale

if you must, make sure you’re legal, you take care of your own, and above all you know your enemy

in #stockhom #sweden #sverige, what was broached in #dublin #ireland in 2016 is now possible here.

and i feel like it is new; not returning to an awful toxic past and having to pay every day for it, as it remains close and clammy to the touch.

no.

not that.

solving the putin problem

i was asked on the train today what the keys are to solving the #putinproblem.

the #putinproblem includes #trump, and #brexit, and #facebook escaping with virtual murder as #cambridgeanalytica became the fall guy for the inevitable outcome of #zuckerberg’s choice of business model: this outcome being the savage and unremitting dismantling of citizen agency in modern western and associated democracies.

it includes everything that means even professionals will think, when they take a life-changing decision on someone in their life-changing nominal charge, they do so with this agency i mention: no one else is furtively intervening. and god forbid that those intervening might be criminals on the scale of #putin’s #russia.

so the keys to solving these #complexproblems longitudinally and long-term are …?

first: accepting how we’ve been part of the problem

first, everyone who wants to join me in this battle in favour of a new democracy and against the #tech-driven #gaslighting that has been designed, developed and implemented over decades must accept they both tolerated and in some senses embraced #neoterrorismontheindividual because they used it themselves to shape their societies. they must take it firmly on the chin, as i do, that we are still part of the problem.

and whilst they/we were better at it than the enemy — #russia, a #badmoney without sovereign frontiers, #bigtech in practically all its manifestations — all was kinda ok. people like myself did get improperly incarcerated by proficient users of symbolic communication such as the #british, and by extension the #irish, but those of us who had to suffer such indignities and injustices were relatively small in number. i suppose.

second: how we’ve enabled the enemy

the problem is when the enemy gets better than you could ever imagine at this #neoterrorismontheindividual i uncover. and an even bigger challenge: when you simply have no inkling that they have got so much better than you, nor indeed for how long … nor when it all started to go belly-up.

• crimehunch.com/neocrime

this is what i say has happened already. i was saying it somehow in my #criminaljustice dissertation back in 2017. i realise in hindsight now that both the #british and #irish agreed and were as one: i had to be scoped out of academic circulation. symbolic language is a mark of the #british security state’s capacity to control a society without ever taking ownership. (the #irish — suffering the colonising #english — had to compete against this: and we know the #tech adage about being careful who you compete against because, one fine terrible day, you’ll become just like them.)

and so see how cozying up to these #espionage ways and means enabled deep #russian interests close to #putin to embed themselves in #uk football clubs, financial institutions and other channels where money flows freely and conveniently.

third: symbolism as a cancer to democracy

wherever a country prefers to use #symbolism to rule we have a cancer: a cancer on democracy; on the opportunities for democracy to flourish; on the chances that democracy might sustain and renew itself where needs be.

‘question is: are the upsides of using #symbolic systems worth the downsides? maybe they are: #espionage is a common thread throughout #human #history. so maybe all ok in this sense (despite the occasional collateral damage such as myself back in 2002-2003 and then again in 2004, and in 2017 … and many more times i guess even i haven’t yet sussed).

but it’s NOT ok when the genie whose bottle we uncorked centuries ago becomes owned by the enemy under our noses.

so to answer, finally, the question i was posed on the train this morning: if #zuckerberg and the illegitimate influencing of democratic discourse … if #brexit … if #trump and insurrection … and ultimately if #putin’s three wars in fifteen years culminating in his unforgivable invasion of #ukraine … if all this doesn’t provide the evidence we need in order to say we’ve currently, deeply, awfully lost the war of #espionage; that our enemies far outplay us; and that tolerating and even embracing the tools described in my slide-deck below are something we can continue to do … you really really do, sadly so too, have zero self-awareness.

fourth: solutions and caveats

and i’m not saying don’t use the tricks i define in the slide-deck. i’m saying:

1. if you do sanction their use, do so legally.

2. if you do sanction their use, then do not do so against your own, just because they’re inconvenient voices and thinkers. (that leads to a dismantled democracy from within, and thus supports the enemy even more profoundly than they could hope for.)

3. and last but not least, if you do end up seeing no alternative, never never never show by default or inaction that you underestimate the enemy because #bigtech #corporations tell you that you have all the tools you need. and all the tools the enemy might have.

• crimehunch.com/terror

design philosophy, rationale

like the magdalena’s memory #911

i tasted cold coffee with soya drink just now
and the memories of a campsite somewhere in austria maybe 
high up in the mountains where summer green was all around 
and showers stopped automatically 
and buttons had to be repeatedly pressed
and the early morning drifted smells of bacon grill and more 
and the milk was uht
'cos it had to be it just had ...

so all this came drifting back to me
and all this was sharp as nines 
and all this was in my head just how
and right now is when i remembered with fondness
the trials and tribulations and real pain 
of being my mother and father's son

because mostly it was pain:
slashing tongues which fast cut me to the quick 
nailing me to the spot like hammer hitting out 
and lashing me with criticisms of everything i tried 
to make emerge from me

and so only this minute 
do i begin very slowly 
to do the things i always wished to do
and be the man i never was 
and grin to love
not grin to bear 
and find at last 
in human relations 
the right to enjoy myself full fair 
without recrimination or disapprobation 
or disapproval of some religious scriptures:
what hurt me so all those years ago 
and still on occasions serves to actually destroy my soul 

and so now i don't care
what he might think
because now he's passed and is in his clink 
and she meanwhile reveals herself 
as authoritarian body
of dictatorial mouse:
scampering around and making all silent 
and then patting down the violences of them both

for the passive-aggression he imposed on my child 
was fully enabled by her actions of default
and whilst i was younger
and felt myself deeply
the blame of just being there and occupying a space 
which was never to be mine 
in the end it's true i've had this life of falsehood 
and in the end it will be TRUER
you and me
or me and another 
or whomsoever i shall finally meet 
in joy and daily grandeur 
when heads hit pillows 
and the mellowness of affection 
turns into 
for a moment 
no longer the passions of terrible and bloody rejection 
for my brain is a magdalena 
and my memories are beginning to heal