I’ve been thinking a lot about loyalty. When your homeland is corrupt and has been for decades longer than anyone really realised, how can you be loyal to it?
And when you have experienced not only the rank corruption of your homeland but of the two other countries you best know, then how on earth can someone oblige you to profess loyalty to such a mess as all that lived experience leaves behind?
What right does someone have to demand of you that you stop seeing things in black & white? Like if the person who raped me back in 2004 I should see as the victim of the event? Like not see things in this kind of black & white but in pleasing shades of grey instead? “Oh, it’s ok love: it was just a thing of greys … that thing you made me do.”
Because some things are black & white: that’s why the couplet exists and has arisen in the first place as a figure of speech. And tbh, as a writer I should advocate a right for anyone to say at the very least they have every obligation to write in black & white. The colour of words on paper or a screen, if nothing else.
Love is love. Yes. But sacrificial love of corrupt people and places is not love. It’s not. And the relativism that says that sacrifice as a discourse of choice of this same idea of love rather than a tragic outcome of the circumstances surrounding the same is just not on: no, sir.
Sir, lady, any-gender, all-genders … it makes no difference. It’s not what love is about.
Certain forces in our societies across the globe have poisoned our capacity to trust not each other but the fact of life’s final ability to bless us daily. It’s true. I once wrote about it: a blogpost on what I called the Petri-dish theory of creating better society. Not particularly original, granted; but penicillin representing the good people most of us are versus the bacterial cultures that are practically all powerful persons and organisations. The idea being to create our own Petri dishes out of which parallel worlds so overwhelmingly attractive would emerge and serve to quench the fire of the powerful with the water of the rest of us.
Not fire with fire any more: fire with water. Intelligent and quite stealthy victory. Without breast-beating in the least. Just achieving, covertly behind the scenes … and the bad guys realising nothing in time.
But even as I write these words and sustain their value, I’m also firm about what I call macro- & micro-strategising. The former, the big picture. The latter, the journey and its sometimes hugely unpredictable details, which unavoidably will cumulatively impact, surprisingly always, on the original projections.
This is why fighting fire with water — love — must be our big picture, whilst fire with fire is the journey, occasionally.
That is, sacrifice.
I now philosophise both into concepts I will never abandon. The first, my crime and loophole work. The second, happier cleverer societies.
And underpinning both, love on my part. For the humans we all can be.
My next-door neighbours Are Borgias don’t you know Not because of their provenance Or origins at all But simply because they are easy gals and guys Who make money out of beautiful purposes For reasons only they can fathom: With the sole objective and aim To maim humanity
And from very young I was taught What was good and should and ought And so a large part Of this thing I was told Was fine and bold to do In order to become the better you Which God always instructed us to strive for Was bearing witness proudly And shouting out
When the Borgias moved in next door And began to lay a trail of whores And drugs under the beauty Their wealth bestows On the historically hidden and covert Because what such next-door neighbours do When they show you that calling out is dumb … All those crimes which they pretend Are ways of doing of utter joy and compassion
When in fact really what it is Really what it becomes Really what the societal sum equals Is not the devil of my Catholic upbringing But the casual evil Displayed by the powerful Who without many exceptions Prefer to exhibit brazenly Their total absence of kindliness
And their complete manifestation And destruction to the max Of the taxing responsibilities I was brought up to shoulder: Be good when you must And change for the better what you can And where the Borgias next-door Have seeped over the years Stealthily and criminally
And ultimately Definitively into the fabric once treasurable And lined with threads of a good gold Of a society worth living But which now is lacking in conviction of any sorts Particularly the judicial ones … Because once the Borgias move in next-door You might as well accept You’ve also become their whore
I’ve been thinking a while. I don’t want to join sects: and modern business is one such thing. You’re either in or not, and if you’re in then the puticlubs and savage banter and casual bullying become part of the deal.
Since specifically 2016 I’ve attempted to change bad money (most money) from the inside with my carefully wrought arguments and posts, mainly on LinkedIn. It clearly hasn’t worked: the profiteers have made billions out of pandemic, Ukraine, and God knows what else. You can’t change the world using the world’s tools. You have to create a parallel universe so overwhelmingly beautiful, inclusive and — most significantly — EFFICIENT that like moths to a benevolent candle we will all be drawn, those of us who still know how to care, so that the faces of each of us will become known to the others and the good will vanquish what my logic has failed to conquer.
‘Just been thinking things like this. My next steps? Create a separate IT. This.
These past couple of weeks have been increasingly hard for me. The power of the British state — mismanaged and authoritarian as it has been for so many decades now, with a direct lineage between this mismanagement and outcomes such as Brexit, pandemic graft, and the corrupt behaviours of much of its law-enforcement and too many of its security agencies — has proven too much for those I consider places of real worth and beautiful society. Where I am this minute, and where soon I shan’t be.
I have seen a new world here in Sweden: a world Britain had taught me not to even hope for. A world I had learnt not to expect as my birthright. A world which doesn’t use mental-health legislation as a criminal-justice and security enforcement tool, but treasures and values deeply the citizen and individual as the basic and yet utterly rich building-block of all society’s structures and ways of being, doing and seeing.
Yes. Everything Sweden clearly is becomes everything British politics and business have turned their backs on. Not because they don’t know its value: precisely because they do.
Next week, because I must, and it is right not to abuse Swedish hospitality, I will leave for my homeland. I will pick up medication I need, and then continue to pursue my projects as I might.
I have a gift and a talent, as my Catholic mother would say: I see the world as it really is. Everything. How the good happens and how the bad happens.
And I know now that there is much less bad in Sweden than in the UK.
And I also know that this is a choice, made deliberately and deliberatedly.
Sweden chooses good.
Britain chooses graft.
And more importantly, whilst there are good people everywhere, in Sweden they still have power to effect change for the better.
In the UK, meantime, the good lack the courage of their convictions. And so there is no going back.
For there might as well as be no good people in my homeland. Can you remember when they actually delivered? Permanently? With utility? With sensibility? With value? With compassion? With pride?
1. my homeland — the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland — needs to publicly apologise and make reparations for unduly and improperly incarcerating me in a high-security mental-health establishment during one month in the summer of 2003.
2. once this apology is embedded both legally and emotionally for the people who knew me before, during and since, i’d like some kind of utility be assigned me, which helpfully channels the skills i have not been allowed by the aforementioned state to deliver on — before, during and since — to find an appropriate and relevant place of rest and operation.
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:
“the fallen warriors of ALL our souls” — a poem by mil williams
it's the apollo moonshot it's the manhattan project and we have to accept we might, yer know ... but we must try even so: we can be astronauts of the mind for this is where i want to go
this is about john forbes nash jr and what he could sense and why they put him away because he couldn't quite evidence his tense that day
and it's what i can sense too and it's what i sensed in 2002 onwards and it's why the british and others put me away but not because i couldn't evidence what i sensed then or did say no no no not at all rather, i mean, because they didn't want to let me try and evidence right and properly
would i be prepared now to die in the attempt? i'll try not to because i want to come back and evidence it full in order to bear witness to what john forbes nash jr saw in his time but couldn't prove dear people i say couldn't prove rightly at all them days
and what i saw from 2002 onwards and wasn't allowed by the british and others to share with anyone and anything and after means i know also what he couldn't share in his day with the rest of the people he met and did pray meaning i know too well how his best never did find a path where to shine fine was allowed its trace outside any kind of wrath
another dimension: one of the mind one some of us can access simply via our brains sometimes poorly so poorly that the authorities around us easily incarcerate us for what we say we see and what we claim to be and sometimes so well they may choose to dispose of us too as if a piece of scrap paper so scraggy, torn and weary and nothing more than tatty as hell and rattier than any role
well now it's going to be that apollo moonshot revisited and a new manhattan project too as we venture forth as astronauts of the mind for sure and we may die in the attempt it's true but by golly we'll surely try not to because this time we want to evidence it all for the memory of the fallen warriors of ALL our souls who died whilst being in the right and had their light extinguished by the most trite of all our hearts where everything was lost to costs with no value at all at all
and time it is as time it was to write the wrongs and read everyone's rights
for nothing is now to stay the same and whilst days of yore brought promises of outcome and even of judgments deeply felt the scores we scratch on sticks of loud hollow sound will only now keep metronomic time if we wish them to rhyme in this way because life is precious and starting again and time it was and time it's become
for the moonshot again and the project of stranger rains and sometimes it's going to hurt real bad and sometimes we'll cry as never before: for sure it will my dears be sad and maybe seem to be this bad but if we pursue with a goodwill of the best the rest will show us fine just one thing of grand and so what it is and what it will be is to stand and act out of true charity
now some reflections on the above …
what if all my projects and ideas for #secrecypositive and related … what if they have been attempts — maybe poor, but attempts all the same — to understand real experiences i’ve had and sensed before and since i was unduly incarcerated by the uk for having them and imperfectly expressing them in 2002 onwards?
what if some of us — those of us, for example, who have been, are and will continue to be accused NEVER diagnosed of mental ill-health at some point in our lives — are actually in some fumbling, stumbling way privileged persons able to access some other ways of being?
and what if when they medicate us, we’re having the shutters and drawbridges brought down almost violently on something which could otherwise have been utterly beautiful and radically life-regenerating?
ever since that thing which happened that night in front of citibank, i was sure the goal was to make other people laugh at my expense
i suspected it soon after bloomsday 2016
but i was never sure
but i don't mind
they were wrong, all of them: mark, dermott, james et al
if you do to bullies what they have chosen to do to you, in order that is to make you look humourless, they wouldn't laugh
that's how to work out if they are bullies or not
which is why i know they are
people who were laughing at your expense because they loved you would laugh too when you laughed back at them for some equal foolishness
so mark, and maybe whilst c was his girlfriend perhaps c too, thought i needed taking down a peg or two
but the dynamic changes when i begin to be driven to do interesting things
and the plan backfires on the irish and mi5
dramatically and drastically
so now they have to stop me
and they haven't got a fucking clue
and that's the story from beginning to end
i'm not humourless at all
i've been bullied first by my ex- and k and my mother in the early years, poor mum -- i know why so it's ok ... and then my father and it was never ok, and my youngest brother, too -- but he means nothing now
and by bland and littlejohns, of course
and by the british state and investors all over in their small-minded networks of tiny common interests
and still i want to make a better world
because i'll never stop wanting to communicate my witness
and communicate my voice, not my opinions
and use my capacity and ability and talent for writing to good effect
and if i've failed ... well ... that's what we humans do
and if i'm overbearingly male and white and upper middle-aged, then i am
but when i die, someone else better than me will try to do some of what i have attempted
it's ok
it's a life
there's billions more to come
and btw c, just so you know for sure, we need now to make up ... yes, we do
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:
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.
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.
mil's page 