ukraine – mil's page

definition, design philosophy, rationale

“the cooler elements of THAT day’s picnicking”

a #poem by mil for you

we went to school that day though we thought it was only adultplay

but we were learning to be the best we could be -- even and ever and just like that

and it's been a long haul since i saw the burning red tip of your cigarette

as it glowed like your verbal flow so sharp and kinda hard-like: a map of sorts

but your hard really ain't that tough as they might think in all those lost places of clink

'cos you're a woman of justice and if occasionally icy

it's only because the person in front of you ain't nicey at all

and you've had quite a few of these to deal with in your time

whilst all i could do was rhyme as i do and always have: funny that, imho

but not too funny because whilst you and i were suffering like we have been

the bombs rained down on ukraine -- and all we could say or do was rue

instead of act and make factual the suspicions we had all this time

of those who don't know even the beauty of a rhyme

never mind its point ... which tbh is a far harder construct

to get one's head around if stupidity and falsehood are your foundations

and touchstones and millstones -- and then again the wretched melancholy

of all that pain as the balding blame issues forth and the recriminations bloat

like ships in the night as we pass each other's floats

and those buoys (where not boys who refuse to play ball but simply condemn women

like they were toys to be habitually abused and NEVER embraced

with the gentleness and gentility of lacier feelings over the racier)

because one day it's true that we'll have to knuckle down

to the job in hand and make that band absolutely resistant

to the invasions of trust which over the years all of us have heard

and which have mined our capacity to be sure that everything raw

was as true as we saw and sensed and knew to be the case

'cos that's what in the end it's all about -- and this i will shout out:

for being human sometimes means being really inhuman ... whether we like it ...

or NOT!

and so whether shot of it all out of pure and simple disgust

or hugging it all because violent man i realise i am

either way -- when the battle ain't of choice -- it's a royal endeavour

of aggressions enjoined and mouths overheard

and all those FUCKING hurts and wounded bodies and struggling minds

as all we'll ever fight for still is a bit of kindness and compassion

amongst the fields of the deceased and passed away

when that beautiful picnicking day we met first on the liffey during bloomsday 2016

and so it is that now we know and now we understand it's time we walked

hand in hand in order to dismantle little by little the causes of ukraine

which aren't distant at all from the communities we've both been living in all these years

and which even we sometimes support with our weaknesses

into the crime that stealthily funds the bombs

in distant countries no longer distant any more in any way whatsoever

that makes any sense to either me or you or even maybe the populace too

which populates with an awfully casual polluting inconsequential instagramming

the brains and sanities of all the ones we love and treasure

and measure our daily actions by ... for that is what it's all about really ...

just being together as one in the good -- and then supporting as the many

when the bad attacks our ability to soldier on and be the warriors we need to be

and should have remained all those years our pleas went unheard

and then again at night when so dark sometimes finding a pleasure

snatched and scratched like the desolation of experiences lived

all those once upon a times ... and then perhaps out of hope and now i guess out of scope

but then again and again maybe it is now time to give up on the rhyming

and begin fighting fire with fire once more just as the irish lyre and the swedish lion

and the british grit bleeding and sweating and crying its ways back

into the place it always felt was there even when the russian whore

knew so much more about uk politics and its moneying instincts

and ALL their swirling contaminating wealth alongside that covertly stealthy ill-health of spirit

and how it took plainly apart the integrity of a democracy

because now dearest c that's what this is all about:

making sure the loudest voice becomes ours

without a shadow of a doubt or a hesitation or a single demurring intention

because all that's left for us to do today is fight the putins of this world

with the tools we must use as we know full well (and we did too)

and so in the end they shall lose it all it all it all my friends

(and how grand it will be when they absolutely do

and how grand how grand how grand it will be when they finally do ...)

compensifyme.org | #compensifymeorg

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 …

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

“this, for everyone watching”

my capacity to have a decent homelife is NOT going to be the issue here.

your capacity to upturn paradigms MUST be.

we don’t deserve another ukraine.

you’ll enable one by blaming my imperfections for not taking a decision on this.

#truth

oh, and i go with governments and their defence infrastructures, not governments and their security. not even governments and their “chosen” tech partners. i’ll vet the latter myself, too: now i will.

my rationale in all this?

1. security is more often than not reactive — responding to enemy actors as they act. it also gets completely engaged by the espionage of uncertainty. it may be right when it does; it often gets enchanted in terrible ways, however, which may mean it doesn’t know fiction from fact.

2. defence as a mindset when effective is ESSENTIALLY strategic. cleanly so. cleanly.

i want cleanly and geopolitically “strategic” for this: delivering the longitudinally robust measures that arc over relatively short democratic cycles in order to ensure that putinism and the like don’t prevent the ongoing flourishing of western democracy as we desire it.

and what that is i’m not going to be prescriptive about — it’s a matter for wider debate.

but what happened in the uk when security allowed the russian oligarchs (putin) to control the conservative party, perhaps over decades without taking a single measure against, and even when this party was in government, should not be able to happen anywhere in europe.

mi5 said around 2017 that it could ringfence high-level chinese tech at the heart of its new comms infrastructure. even the conservative backbenchers, who were friends of putin & co, couldn’t stomach such an idiotic assertion. it didn’t happen: not because security changed its mind, though; rather, because politicians just decided they wouldn’t allow.

my thesis is that defence, meanwhile (even — and maybe particularly — uk defence) would never have contemplated the foolishness in the first place.

so this is the “why” of my rationale: i want defence organisations clear about the enemy always, and operating under sophisticated democratic cultures more than laws, but laws of course as well, to protect our democracies longitudinally from putinism and the like, and from the chinese and others too.

that is, to arc over our democratic cycles and protect their integrity as deeply as possible. to make it possible for a ukraine, battled back fiercely and finally into europe’s core, to one day soon enjoy the same democratic cycles as the rest of us. and for russia et al NOT to buy their way into the heart of any western democracies ever again. neither overtly with football clubs and property to launder its dirty money, nor stealthily by the gaslighting of emerging social and political notables of any age, culture or belief system that complies minimally with our treasurable desires to deliver tolerance and acceptance of every human being we are.

not russia. not china. not uk security. but maybe, just maybe, democracy’s defence organisations everywhere.

#neoterrorismontheindividual

#tech-driven #gaslighting

#geopolitical

#nato

#europeanpresidency

#europeancommission #europeanunion