One of my long-term #ai projects

John Forbes Nash Jr is remembered as one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century. He was made media-famous in a film I conserve great affection for: “A Beautiful Mind”.

One of my long-term #ai projects involves demonstrating that Nash was right about what he was denigrated for sensing: something out there, like the whistle a dog can hear but most humans refuse to.

Nash was wrong to attribute the perceived to Russian spying and conspiracy. He was, however, IMHO, right to argue there was something out there that his SKILLSET, never INFIRMITY, allowed him to see; a something which his doctors were unable to admit.

In my judgement, Rosenhan got it right in the 1970s, too:

We forget – or choose to rubbish – Rosenhan.

He showed us, alongside Laing and Esterson, that schizophrenia was a gross misunderstanding of very many beautiful minds:

I am one of those minds: possessed of a skill, not ill. One day, I look to the moment that the studies into my understanding of #ai will show Nash, alongside so many others of his accusation, was utterly correct in his perceptions – and only wrong in his conclusions.

“Let’s not brake our humanity; let’s make it”

I believe nothing is irrational, and when I say this I mean there is a “why” which explains everything.

That we ignore it because we do not know or hide it because we find it inconvenient is a separate truth.

But the reality, either why, is that nothing for my universe and my belief system is irrational.

Similarly, if we can only conceptualise a way of validating all these apparent irrationalities, then human beings the world over – in a devolved and supportive sort of way – will collaboratively be able to begin to wipe out waste:

  1. The waste of banana left whilst finite life to rot on the dock.
  2. The waste of human genius, which whilst universal remains in truth a privilege for the deliberately limited few.
  3. The waste of a modern tech designed, not naturally but specifically, to enrich the few at the expense of the many.
  4. And finally, simply, the waste of using tools created by humans to reduce the number of planetary interactions they can participate in to those that make them extensions of the machine.

I don’t want to brake humanity with my software. I want to make it.

It’s easy to make money by monetising humans out of the value-adding frame, and making them simple suckling pigs on the body tech of concentrated wealth.

But easy equals the end of the species.

In the end, it does.

Actually, is that what we want?

“What’s making you uncomfortable – and why?”

Feeling uncomfortable is good, they say. But even here, like the inevitability of change, it does – actually – depend on the nature of the uncomfort.

So if we feel uncomfortable, don’t tell us: “This is good! Embrace! Grow! Survive and then live!”

Instead, ask us a question: “What’s making you uncomfortable – and why?”

Because the uncomfort of the wealthy resides mostly in existential dilemma: “Do I have twenty or twenty-five bathrooms in my mansion?”

Whilst the uncomfort of the poor – particularly in the material – lies in not being allowed by society to aspire to the riches they are already, inside their very beings.

The problem ain’t if we need more benefactors, who will always assign – in individually good faith, I am sure – a noblesse oblige of a counterweight to the injustices of modern Western democracies.

The problem is not one of top-down ad hoc redistribution.

The problem is that the people at the bottom are people of top knowledge who don’t have enough cash.

And no cash equals no physical mobility equals no social advancement equals never more than survive.

Why are the wealthy considered clever and astute, and the poor considered cunning and sly?

Answer this question, and you have the answer to all the bads of our civilisation.

Actually, all.

The Volvo seatbelt example (or how we can all LITERALLY become geniuses)

I prefer to make money for a greater good: that of my own nuclear family and of a wider society.

But it must be Good Money, not the Bad most of you choose and love.

And I would rather lose everything I have, and even my shirt, by open-sourcing it for a broader humanity than fire-sale to people who will choose only to sit on it and keep it for themselves.

We are LITERALLY talking about the printing-press of intuitive thinking; and tbh, this invention – just like Volvo’s seatbelts – does in fact belong to the people.

It is THAT important and transcendental.


I promise you it is.


I know.

People cleverer than me accuse me of there never existing people in my projects. They are liars, those who have said this. They, precisely they, know more than anyone that my processes are aimed at giving free thought and genius to every human being; genius and freedoms the liars currently keep to themselves.

My projects only exist BECAUSE of people.

Bezos and Uber and so many others exist only to make money by eliminating people.

So even if tomorrow someone bought it off me and I could settle my crippling personal debts, you know what? I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t sell it to anyone. It’s going to be open-sourced whether bankrupt I become or not, and through this process of total transparency, it will become – as so many platforms and inventions before it – both a tool for grandeur and hate.

This is the main reason I have held back from taking this measure. I assumed those with money would see my value and NOT be waiting for a fire sale.

In this I was quite wrong. No value do they see in my being allowed to continue at all.

And so it is my turn to press the button of total access.

No alternative.

Painted awfully into a corner.

Let’s hope those of us who believe in grandeur are able, finally, to beat the wealthy hateful to the gate.

Gutenberg did. So did Linux. Copyright law, when it started out, created a hugely enriching public domain. The Volvo gift to life, their inventing of the seatbelt, showed us just as grandly the ways of Good Business.

Structures humans invent can be SO beneficial, too.

And it’s now, utterly, the turn of the printing-press of intuitive thinking: the platform of creativity which makes of us all, or of those of us who really choose, geniuses and fabulous thinkers of philosophical marvellous.

This is where I am now headed.

Tomorrow, in Chester UK, the 11th of the 11th, 2019.

Which is to say: 111119.


“Four people” – a #conclusion, and a #commondemoninator

There are four people you meet when what you do is create – in REAL good faith – ideas that could disrupt the world for the general AND particular better.

  1. The first has no idea what you are talking about, and they rarely will.
  2. The second gives you the impression they are the first, but in actual fact will do everything they can to stymie your proposal. For they fully understand you, and the implications of what you might achieve; they see you, therefore, as a threat to their own very selfish interests: a threat which needs neutralising in as stealthy way as possible, as soon as possible.
  3. The third doesn’t quite know what to make of you, but they truly do learn to treasure you. They WANT to understand, in fact; they want you, often, to succeed without knowing exactly why you should.
  4. And finally, the fourth is the one who both fully understands – in that beautiful, sexy and so so desirable five-second penny-dropping way that good sexual encounter delivers – AND wants to help you make it come rapidly, fabulously true.

In all the places I have visited since C on Bloomsday 2016, it is the first three I have met; more precisely, generally number 2.

I now want 4. And I shall now go anywhere legal to get it. Because.


Footnote to this post: I didn’t mean “demoninator”, but now I think I do!


“The principles on which Better Biz Me was originally imagineered:” – some #background started out a while ago as a domain name I bought to drive a user-, consumer- and citizen-located self-regulating way of reshaping business practice and instincts.

The app I imagineered in a blogpost on my old and now defunct blog “21st Century Fix” actually became a negative idea in someone else’s hands: I think it was called “Boycott”, and defo NOT the focus I wanted to bring. I am a diplomat by instinct: I always want to achieve win/win as a matter of course. We are on this rock together, after all. We should ALL act accordingly.

Anyways. The goal was to use open- and other data sources to allow people to evaluate, rate and doublecheck, on the fly, the sustainability of any business model before deciding to buy; on using any online vendor before jumping in; any individual product or service; anything whatsoever that involved exchanging monies.

In this way, a Better Biz would be shaped by users AND businesses, in particular those businesses tied to bad practice by the inevitable conditions of their sectors, but strongly desiring to sustainably move forwards on the planet and our shared futures.

And a Better Biz equals, always, Good Democracy. And thus vice versa.

What has motivated me to deliver an intuitive insights capture-platform: an open letter*

* Originally written and briefly posted on 12th April 2019 in Liverpool UK, and republished today 3rd November 2019 in Chester UK, without amendments to what follows

Dear C_____

I wanted to write to you and explain why I have done the wrongs I have done over the past two years or so – and also, for the very same reasons, the rights.

I am not just motivated, I am driven: driven and obsessed by my personal experience of injustice, but also by a perceived wider one. Perceived by myself all too clearly, for sure; far more tragically, utterly ignored by the sufferers and victims.

I am driven to deliver a liberating and people-empowering software platform. I shall not give up, however hard the bastards destroy my desire to exist.

I honestly, sincerely mean this.

I was locked up illegally by the state in 2003 under mental health legislation for a month, for not being able to evidence my intuition about a surveillance being actioned on my person. Ten years later, Edward Snowden did succeed in evidencing everything I sensed to be the case in 2003, and for whose perceiving I was locked away under false pretences.

I was locked away because it was my intuition – as a person possessed (sometimes literally!) of a hyper-sensitive mind – that allowed me to detect and connect all the things I saw with such certainty. THEY assumed I had privileged information. What actually I had was a privileged brain.

In 2018, one of the three men who had been on the tribunal that decided my imprisonment in 2003 was charged and sentenced for being in possession of 17,000 extreme child porn photos and videos, after a year-long investigation by Cheshire police. He only received a 20-month prison sentence from what one presumes was a friendly judge. What’s more, the prison sentence was suspended. This extreme child pornographer was free to continue his abuses as soon as the sentence was handed down.

Incidentally, after I was released from prison, back in 2003, he had become our family GP: my CHILDREN’S GP, for chrissakes.

This GP had also been my father’s close friend. And my father had been the second of the three men on the tribunal that had put me away. My father was a bully, and used to regularly walk naked around the house in my presence when I was a child. My mother was advised by five CATHOLIC priests – during a consultation period of two months some few years ago – to divorce him. She foolishly neglected to take them up on this astonishing admission of marital breakdown.

These were two of the three men the UK state used in 2003 to silence me.

I was framed and set up and drugged and destroyed professionally and emotionally over the following decade and a half by this state.

So this is why now I would love for this software project to exist, even if – one day – I shall no longer.

I NEVER want ANYONE to be in my exposed, vulnerable position. I want all peoples, whatever their race, creed or belief system, to be able to show mainly white upper-middle-aged men, ostensibly much as myself, who rule – nay, lord over! – the world with their precious numbers, that emotions are not emotive but straightforwardly rational. Arational if you must, but AT LEAST arational: NEVER irrational.

And I NEVER want to hear this story again: never hear that another has experienced the same as the past two decades of my life have delivered to me.

Have a grand Friday, C_____.

I hope, somewhere in your being, you may now begin to understand that my irrational behaviours to you, even as unacceptable and unjust on my part, were grounded in origens of pure reason.

I simply wanted to discover the pure and unalloyed truth; and whether rightly or wrongly, I sensed intuitively that maybe you had access to it.

As unalloyed and pure as the very best arabica.

As pure as that.

That’s all.

For everything else, I am deeply ashamed of my behaviours, and am really sorry that I have made life difficult for you, as I surely must have done during this period.

There is no such thing as irrational; everything has a reason. But even a reason, even a good reason, does not necessarily equal an excuse.

I accept this now, and ask your forgiveness.

Mil, 12th April 2019, Liverpool UK

“The view from a window, beautifully!”

#happymil #justnow #tree

It’s true, what Di Hutchinson pointed out: not everyone can find the beautiful that it is to be found everywhere.

Mebbe it’s because we assume that this attitude is mindfulness on steroids; and steroids when casually abused will never be beautiful at all.

But the truth is, you tell someone sad they’re sad because they’re bad, and neither bad nor sad will absent themselves from their lives.

You stop denying a harsh reality, however, and sooner rather than later that person will feel vindicated. And – apart from true and unconditional love – there is nothing able to deliver cool balm to troubled soul than the application of a bandage of vindicate.

We need vindication because it is wrong to say we are wrong when we are right.

I live by two principles:

  1. Nothing about us, without us.
  2. Truth before reconciliation.

Everything I write on these and other pages is infused by these two tenets.

Everything I am – and will be – is contained AND liberated by these eight, infinite, words of grand.

Have a great #sunday, whatever your belief system.

As long as your system is tolerant of others, and only inflexible in the face of others’ intolerance.

#uncategorised #truth

Some #women, in particular; some #men, less commonly – but even so; and #allgenders, beautiful … for sure.

#uncategorised #truth

Importantly #Ireland; key #US-way; fewer than I EVER imagined in the #UK … #disappointment, a sense of growing #deception – and yet, more and more also, of #hope in the #future too: a rapidly growing #lookingforwardto of better times, of #longertermtimes.

#Croatia and the #US was where the #UK put their collective feet down on me, and where it was decided the #Americans and the #Croatians should NOT have their preferred option and way re my intellectual and creative possibilities: re my porvenir.

Sixteen years it’s taken me to return to a position of having a right to be fully appreciated by these two countries, and for the #Irish, as real honest brokers of historical weight, to deliver on the truth where SOME #British only wished to brush me under carpets of corrupt and red-faced whitewash, and lie.

Let’s do this.

Let’s keep Liverpool’s two brill intuition-capture collaborators, #citrussuite and #quanovo, in on the project and at its very heart.

But the project now needs moving.

I was wrongly accused by the British authorities of paranoid schizophrenia.

So was John Forbes Nash Jr.

Let’s move everything to the #US, and #Ireland.


“It wasn’t the US, was it …?”

… or what I never COULD’VE expected

In #Croatia, the #US saw my value where my own country refused to.

And #Ireland was looking to re-broker that relationship all along. And so was C. And L somewhere along the line.

And J and D were looking to allow the ideas to develop, in order to rip them off.

But the US is a country of the long-term. The US knows the value of INDIVIDUAL brains; of INDIVIDUALITY; of liberty of NON-CONFORMITY.

Everyone knows my project is now nickable, but the US also knows – far more intelligently – that it could be pushed so very much further, and to real long-term advancement. And this advancement would be both #humanitarian AND #military. And actually because humanitarian, therefore military.

As long as the brains involved to date can be tempted over the Atlantic.

It’s no temptation. It’s an opportunity. And I hope it will be for Chris and Thomas too.

“There is no such thing as irrational.”

“There is no such thing as irrational.” – or how humans and AI can WHYS up, together

1. We use visual language intelligently, to connect humans and AI in a dialogue, which is just as human-friendly as it is AI-friendly.

2. We make it cost effective for human intuition to inform AI intuition, and vice versa.

3. We use AI, not so that human beings can sleep more easily but – instead – so that they
can be awake more productively and excitedly.

4. For Better Biz Me Ltd, AI is not a simple tool but a profoundly beautiful opportunity.

5. Equally, people are not slaves to the machine but will – using our software platform – be eager to explore their partners in time, and space.

Mil Williams, Liverpool, Monday 1st July 2019

“AssistrTech – NOT Big Brother!” – a short #video #essay

Good morning. Hope the Sunday will be fine for everyone.

Those of you who know me, know my desire to champion intuition. AI is a fab technology, or series of technologies, rather; but if not implemented carefully will satnav our innate ability to think with arational intelligence.

If we are to save the species from self-destruction, we must harness EVERYONE’S subconscious think. It’s in ALL our interests, no one excepted.

That’s what #betterbizme is about: solving very concrete problems with a globally sustainable focus.

This week I shall be discussing the commercialisation and future roadmap of the #situationalawareness #app I have designed alongside my tech partners here in #liverpool. It’s one foundation stone to a wider capturing and evidencing of this beautiful, fragile, hardy, vulnerable, accurate, and efficient thing we call intuition.

Enjoy the vid! 🙂

#assistrtech #notbigbrother

#liverpool snapped #justnow

#intuition #arationality #nosuchthingasirrational


“Does who you are give you the right to cause offence?” – a short #essay

No, of course not. But too many people give offence through their actions, quite stealthily, without taking ownership. They run the world, by doing so. They construct economies and laws so that neither criminal nor economic justice is to be contemplated.

This is causing offence by design.

My offence, ongoing and consistent and equally wrong, is in reaction to a massive crime committed knowingly by the above-mentioned against my person back in 2003, which could easily be remedied right now: a simple public apology would suffice, alongside the comfort that any work I do in the future will not be controlled by or be at the behest and secretive noblesse oblige of those who have wished to hurt me all this time.

I no longer ask for compensation. I just ask for a public recognition of the nature of the mistake, the following years of cover-up, and the now strong desire on the part of all those involved to not do the same to anyone else, ever.

I just want justice by a democracy I still believe can be good.

That’s all.

“Working-customer rights” – one #pic and a short #essay

The problem is #customerservice: the biggest problem of our day.

The biggest #tech companies care only about one customer: the customer who pays.

An example, at least true in this particular case.

I was talking with a #taxi #driver just now. The company he works for send him messages frequently, with a horrible tone. They take 25% of his fare. They call him out when he’s at home, telling him there are lots of fares in town. When he gets into town, he finds none.

The company in question loves its paying customers, grand. Everyone I know seems to use them.

I have never done so.

Not once.

The problem with the company in question, and so many others with a similar #siliconvalley #mindset, is not that they neglect the PAYING customer: rather, it’s that they refuse to look after the WORKING customer.

Yes. Life would change so very quickly, if instead of talking about workers’ rights, rights which few people care to stand up for any more, we talked about working-customer rights.

Now THAT would be a #disruption, worth witnessing.

“Why the failure of this #unicorn will herald SOME victory” – a short #video and #essay

You do realise the strategic value of almost succeeding? Firstly, when the psychiatrist ever gets a chance in the future to ask you, “Why you? Why now? Why, really, in 2003?” … well, you can AT LAST point to what you almost achieved; and so demonstrate – that is to say, for the first time EVIDENCE – that if you HAD achieved your goals in disrupting modern #tech on behalf of #ordinarypeople, the individuals and organisations and interests you accused in 2003 of following and tracking you, and attempting and managing for a bit to drive you mad, really would have been – actually, truly, literally – threatened by the one man and philosopher of good modernity that you always have been.

And the three men who put you away in 2003 for being deluded will now be unable to deny the truth I propagated then in total good faith: that one man with a great idea is dangerous enough – to some status quos, anyways! – for a conspiracy to be formed around his person, his family, his life and career … and finally, primarily, violently, abusively, his reputation.

Because in almost succeeding … this is when the bad cannot finally avoid acting, and coming out into the open.

And this is good.

And today is better.

Thank you, my dearest #eleven. Thank you.

They are justly uncovered, and revealed, and delivered to the justice they most have deserved all along: their own internecine inhumanity to each other! 😎

“Everything” – a #recounting in one #pic and several #words

Wanna know why so many pics? Because it’s the only way I have left me to channel my enduring anger at having been falsely imprisoned by the British, US and Croatian states in 2003, in a mental institution in #chester #uk. And my anger only increases.

It only increases, and it will only continue to increase.

In that year I saw #snowden ten years before he told us. And for that, I was driven mad by the security agencies of the above-mentioned countries, in order that #mentalhealth #legislation be used against me to shut me down instead of the far more relevant, far more public and reportable, platform of the #criminaljustice system.

And one of the three men who put me away was last year given, in the same city, a suspended prison sentence for the possession of 17,000 child-porn pics. For a short period he had even been my children’s and my family’s GP. He was also a mate of my father’s, the second of the three men who had me put away.

So a lot of unresolved issues, as you can see. No one to go to, either. No one. All PRINGADO, as the Spanish would have it.

And plenty, plenty of reasons to be immensely angry with everyone concerned. With everyone. With every organ of the state that exists. With every default rejection to re-investigate. With every studied step to hide and whitewash and destroy and dismantle lives. With everything that was done to me and my children and my wife.


“The weaponised artist” – a short #ar #video, and tale

In about 2014, whilst I was trying to create a space of Internet and web utility in #chester, totally in opposition to #siliconvalley’s narrative, a man called Marcus Evans met me in an independent coffee shop there, and gave me a subtle warning. He let it be understood that wealthy people of his acquaintance, and on whose part he was clearly acting as messenger, were watching what I was doing.

And they weren’t exactly happy.

I paid little attention at the time.

If I had paid any attention, I would have done everything but the suggested. I don’t take kindly to being threatened. Yer know?

But the interesting part of the story comes next. In hindsight, I think a lot of good people in the #entertainment #industry realised I was being fucked around, perhaps for many many years. And so they decided to reveal the #truth, in the only way a real artist knows: by showing the shit, never telling.

The #trap was set. The #bait was me. The narrative was to turn me into a #CEO in the image of the bad – or, if impossible, destroy me in the process.

Only you know what they say about #hippies, mate. You know what they say about hippies.

Ask me to choose between a #VC and a #weaponised #artist, and I TELL you it’s absolutely no contest whatsoever.

And no one, but no one, in the entertainment industry loves the men of money EVER.

Go to the #press, please. Go to the press. Dump this on the #Internet and #web, as far and as long as it goes. All of it. Every single word.

It’s time to show everyone the mafia they are. It’s time to, actually, show them up.

“The Counter-Mafia” – a short short #story about trackback

My life has been plagued – or blessed – over the past three years, ever since I met a woman who cared – or hated – enough to want to meet me once, and not want to meet me for a second time.

And under and around and beside and alongside all of what she represented – or didn’t – has existed a real network of mafia-like behaviours, as destructive as any trad mafia you ever saw a film about.

These are the people who pursued me to buy me off, or alternatively to destroy me without ownership. It looks like, after a very long drawn-out period, they will get their way.

These people are made up of everyone who subscribes to the singular, supremely self-interested business model of #siliconvalley: they include tech people themselves, and everyone who, agreeing with this mindset, earns a living off its noblesse oblige. This is by no means AT ALL everyone in tech or sales or marketing.

And yet all this time, I sensed a second layer: a group of good people who tracked the bad, even as the bad thought they were the only ones doing any tracking.

And it is my bet that everything the bad have done to me to destroy me has been recorded by this #anonymous yet absolutely credible group of individuals.

I suspect they also wish me to fail. Otherwise I find it difficult to understand how they have only chosen to communicate with me, never directly intervene.

Still, when one is a bait, and the hunter must not know, because watchers are watching the come and go, there is reason in allowing the pain to flow.

For the record that has been made should, one day soon, be made public, so that all those who have conspired so casually and easily against my person and ideas – in the name of the deity that the #valley has become – should be stripped of all their hidden.

That is my bidden now. If you, dearest second layer, do exist, dump everything, but EVERYTHING, my shame and blame as well as my claim, on the Internet and web, so that, uncovered the brutality of modern #gangstertech, it be bled obvious for all to see.

For if we bemoan our gutted high street, it is the people I describe who are the cause: NEVER their machines.

“Death by a thousand curts” – or the mafias of unscrupulous connection

The world is run by mafias. These mafias have faces we trust, and smile with, and have drinks alongside, and more or less happily work to common goal.

They are not killers in the ordinary sense. Killers in the ordinary sense take ownership for their acts: in certain perverse ways, they are noble beings who do not hide away from the implications of their acts.

But the mafias that I am describing are cowardly: these people we meet every day in order that we might earn a living finally do kill real people’s aspirations every single moment and minute and second of their anonymous lives.

For anonymity is their watchword. And their words, the ones we should watch, are “death by a thousand curts”. Their goal is to control society through such tiny pokes: pokes that leave no trace but act as medieval mace on the brows of people good, you and true.

I shall not bow down to them.

And if you are looking for just one reason why they are doing everything they can to stop me from succeeding, it is this:

I believe, now more than anything ever in my entire time on this rock, that by combining #ai and #visualisation #tech such as #ar it will become not only possible but fabulously easy to evidence the mafia pokes – what I have called toxic #nudgetheory – which lead their enemies, people like you and me, to apparently behave irrationally.

Because our belief in the reality of irrational is what allows the mafias – not the trad ones but the stealthy ones that we marry and live with and fuck happily – to control society. And if nothing was ever considered irrational any more, no tool of underbellied stealth would remain for these cowardly connected to be able to poke their cowardice into useful being.

And that’s the #truth.

“The death of the worker in the 21st century”

“The death of the worker in the 21st century” – a short #abstract #video, and #essay #abstract, in the way of a call to arms to ALL intelligent dwellers of modern community and city

Workers are dying like flies never did. Workers have become the shit around which flies thrive.

The flies are the #neoterrorist strategies, long designed by #tech to gut financially the global world of human neighbourhoods and regional life.

And where city government was once smart, now all we have are the cash cows of smart cities: SO smart that the wealth they generate ends up in pockets quite foreign to the people in working poverty they are shaping and scoping and making as per their wily, ever so wily, roadmaps.

But this brief essay’s purpose is not to call out the selfish: the mainly white men of eager young trampling ambition who aim to concentrate as much wealth as possible in as few hands of dirty as practicable.

No. The purpose of this essay is quite different: using deep neural networks, blockchain tools, and @betterbizme’s very own AssistrTech approaches, it is my suggestion – alongside that of close technical collaborators – that we create city- and region-wide circles of business and societal trust, that allow us – without the weighty, often clumsy, often so very pedantically slow paraphernalia of copyright, of patents, of NDAs and MDAs – to exchange ideas in progressive tech community, without fear that such ideas once publicised may be appropriated by foreign companies – or, indeed, erstwhile colleagues – full of legal ambush.

That is to say, using modern trust-focussed software and hardware tools, we will at last, at quite local levels, be able to share our ideas publicly and openly and, AT THE SAME TIME, be certain that their corresponding attribution and payment remain – in transparent audit trails of beautiful knowledge – ours forever to enjoy automatically.

That is our vision. A truly smart approach to a tech that finally benefits all communities, equitably.

And destroys the #neoterrorism of #siliconvalley forever.

“The new Beatles” – a short #ar #video and #essay

A million-dollar #ai #research #outcome, delivered in #liverpool in less than twelve months, for under 50,000 pounds sterling.

That is what Better Biz Me Ltd, Quanovo Ltd, and CitrusSuite Ltd, all based in and from the #uk city and region, have achieved.

The only people who understood what was happening were those who clearly saw our direction before we ourselves reached the destination, and for so many poor reasons decided to do everything they could to stop it happening. They are not of one nation, but one tendency: rentier capitalists who nurture cash cows and economic inefficiency as bywords of their business behaviours.

In truth, the Better Biz Me #assistrtech technology which is now emerging delivers powerfully on singular opportunities for justice, empowerment, and a righting of commercial imbalances.

The only justification for a competitive liberal democracy and generally free market was to avoid the levels of normalised societal corruption which, sadly, we now have anyway.

It’s time we drove a new #industrialrevolution: the revolution of efficiency driven by #ai and #deepneuralnetwork oversight and reporting. And in its fabulous shade, the COLLABORATION of all humanity which will radically reshape the divide and rule of what we have suffered over the past two centuries: elitist competition in the name of opportunity, and the reality of poverties embedded as if inevitable.

None of the latter being at all true.

And they know it.

And they see what’s now coming.

And shiver they should.

And tremble they must.

“Humanising AI” – a short #ar #video and #essay

After a Defence contract submission at the beginning of May, I have, with my two suppliers here in Liverpool, spent the last month cracking the conundrum of engineering an AI as intuitive as human beings, and avoiding at the same time the temptation to frame human thought out of existence.

So after sixty years of people trying, I think we have delivered on intuition, where millions of dollars previously failed.

What’s been done is a final scoping and validation via a thought experiment, which delivers on both the aforementioned goals.

I figure, now, ten months coding, learning, and testing before the first B2C to market.

All I need is serious investor interest. Am pitching to a local university last week of June, but all income and interest would of course be useful, and – equally – in consonance with my glocalist aspirations.

So if yous know anyone with an investment interest in AR and AI (deep neural networks, in this case), and who wouldn’t be inclined to – in truth – only want to stop the project from coming to fruition, I would love to speak with them.

Full 23-page slide-deck now available.

Looking forward to hearing from yous.

“Wanna jump in?” – a short #ar #video for #partners and #investors in #deepneuralnetworks¹

Music: Derp Nugget
Musician: Kevin MacLeod

¹ Since a big submission at the beginning of May 2019 for a government contract, the #thoughtexperimenting taking place between myself and my #app developer #citrussuite and #AI supplier #quanovo, here in #liverpool #uk, has progressed the capabilities of #deepneuralnetworks more than in decades of previous scoping and imagineering.

Just one reason for #digital to remain a lifeblood of the city’s economy, way into the future.

“Shaken and stirred.” a short #description of something that’s really happening

A short man was eyeing me up at Stand 6 in the town centre. I got on the bus but didn’t see if he had.

I sat right at the front. Just before my stop, he came up and squeezed into the seat to my right. He called me “Sir”, proceeded to quite deliberately block my way as I got out onto the street, and then walked shoulder to shoulder with me, however fast or slow I went. For about fifty yards, this.

This follows on from an incident two weeks’ ago, where I was informed that a member of my family had contracted a hitman to deal with me that night. Total bollocks in retrospect, but I feared that night for my life, and for my son who lives abroad. The father of the person supposedly doing the contracting had recently asked my ex after my son’s whereabouts. They are Northern Irish: they would have the contacts needed. But even so, I think it was mind games more than reality. Tonight was different.

Tonight dates back to my times in Dublin, and since 2016.

I have had the KGB tactic done on me frequently there: the one where they turn up wherever you find yourself physically, and in your vicinity and earshot speak a little too loudly in a language which they know full well upsets you – for whatever reason – to hear.

In my case, they know I am sensitive to Croatian and stuff: wider Eastern European and all. A kind of linguistic PTSD I have: serious shit went down in 2002/03 with me and Croatia. I barely survived.

In fact, I was put away for a month, illegally, in a mental asylum in the UK.

Anyhow, what’s happening these days … I think it’s mostly smoke and mirrors.

Always follow the money.

The Irish tech industry and related has known since 2016/17 I wanted to disrupt business models massively.

If they can’t get me onside, they decide to neutralise me.

Hey. That’s life.

But, now, very soon, I expect to be killed. The police refuse to intervene, that is clear. Let these writings explain, then, to those who will remain, why my body ends up as it shall, when it does.

An open letter to those who care about Good Democracy

Who I am, and why I am getting in touch with yous

My name is Mil Williams. I am 56 (57 this Bloomsday). I was born in Oxford UK, live in Liverpool, and hold British nationality from birth.

I was speaking with someone this morning: I met them where I studied my International Criminal Justice MA in 2016-17, with a dissertation on the subject of surveillance, sousveillance and citizenship, in all their broadest senses.

As a result, I now have a particular interest in what I understand to be neo-terrorism, in particular in the fields of industrial and free-market espionage, and as perhaps committed by corporate bodies on individuals, small organisations and other groupings. I see these kinds of activities as a threat to British business and economic infrastructures, and therefore a national security issue.

Because of this interest, it was suggested it might be productive to contact people who might have an interest in these matters to arrange a meeting, or further explore a possible interaction in some other way, if it was felt it could be beneficial for both sides.

What I am currently delivering

My main occupational interest lies in a software platform designed to allow people to capture, share, evidence and store intuitive/arational/symbolic thinking, so that terrorisms which have yet to take place, or are taking place but remain undetected because of their digital origins, can be better identified, scoped and contained, especially in the context of mafia-like communications and coercions where symbolic language, often challenging for legal structures to codify and punish, may be having a toxic effect on the British economy and its civic society.

To this end, I delivered a proposal, with related technologies, in early May of this year to develop an app and connected AI engine (a bespoke deep neural network), which if successful would be engineered with the financial support of relevant parties.

This proposal would make it possible for members of the public to easily capture, in real-time, their own feelings about and responses to shared infrastructures, in order to create a safer, more secure and more responsive set of spaces for everyone involved.

The decision on this submission will be taken this summer.

One of the things I would like to explore in the future

In the meantime, personal experience and simple observation since 2016, whilst I was working between Liverpool and Dublin (for the moment I am concentrating all my efforts in Liverpool), has helped me coalesce a thesis about long-term neo-terrorism designed by interested parties – in particular, parties with significant economic interests, negative for the UK – to impact on the lives, development and trajectories of concrete persons of interest. I am beginning to suggest that certain tech-related organisations use predictive tools, in combination with big data strategies and approaches, to identify new tech-related actors and thinkers who might be useful for their businesses in the future. This in itself is legitimate, and not the focus of my explorations. The potential for a downside emerges if the actor/thinker/technologist/student/worker doesn’t align enthusiastically with the vision of those described. It is my thesis, at this stage still only anecdotal and unproven, that where onsiding is not achieved, neutralisation will be the considered alternative.

My ask

It has been suggested that this thesis – based on the stealthy, covert use of difficult-to-legally-codify, and therefore difficult-to-punish, intuitive, arational and symbolic communication and coercion – and as an example of a long-term type of neo-terrorism on the individual, might benefit from a further discussion between those who may have experienced such advances, and those already experienced in a multitude of kinds of terrorism.

I would love to be able to have the opportunity to meet with yous one day, at your convenience, in order that we might discuss this idea of neo-terrorism, especially as conducted long-term on individuals, who given a freer rein might have contributed hugely to the UK economic infrastructure, in ways difficult to quantify, and whose participation may be being stymied systematically by large tech organisations and interests from other countries, to the detriment of the UK’s native economic development.

I would be looking, first, to explore if this matter was of interest to yous; and second, if so, what part I might be able to play to facilitate further investigation of such potential terrorisms.

I have already proposed to others that perhaps a PhD on the subject might be a good first step, and I would be more than happy to discuss myself the virtues or otherwise of my delivering a proposal for one. But as I am also involved in integrating software that uses symbolic thought-capture and deep neural network processing of the outcomes, using AR and AI suppliers native to Liverpool, just as easily an expansion of my activities in this area could also be a fruitful avenue to explore.

Either way, I would love the opportunity to meet and discuss these and related matters with yous.

Yours most faithfully,


Silicon Valley = GCHQ’s latest privacy-breaking proposal, since forever

The Guardian newspaper, quite rightly and judiciously, reports on plans by the British security agency GCHQ to introduce a “ghost protocol”. Effectively this means any encrypted conversation you may have with someone else will be automatically CC-ed to the British authorities – and one presumes, in practice, the allies they are comfortable with.

I don’t know the technical details of the plan, but I assume the content would always be filtered by machines before specific data of greater interest was to ever be seen by human beings.

The Guardian newspaper today

Apple, and Facebook’s WhatsApp, have signed an open letter about the proposed “ghost protocol”, alongside real stalwarts of privacy issues – all of which deserve serious discussion – such as Liberty and Privacy International. They ask the government to abandon the idea.

I don’t know if Google has also put pen to digital paper on this, or indeed any of the other big US tech corporations, but whilst Apple continues to give the impression it thinks privacy is worth fighting for, even if only as a business Unique Selling Point, there is no way that the intrusive activities and long-term business models of WhatsApp’s owner Facebook could ever not be Silicon Valley’s very own ghost protocol, from way back when, and since forever.

Both Google and Facebook are the biggest and worst examples of how business models reserve the right to read all our emails, comments whether written or unwritten, and other things we dish out online and behind the scenes with friends, family, perhaps even more significantly our business connections, in order that this content might be tied into our profiles and make us much easier for their paying customers – the advertisers and marketers of big and small organisations alike – to drill down into our inner desires and close that important sale.

I have totally no sympathy for the hypocrisy on privacy these large tech corporations demonstrate. If they care at all these days, it’s because they begin to fear that their income streams might contract as people search out, however painfully, alternatives to their otherwise marvellous products and services.

Privacy deserves a serious debate, as I have already alluded to above and discussed in other posts: for there is a real difference between rightful privacy and maybe wrongful secrecy. That governments of a supposedly democratic bent have acted like the Stasi on this distinction is neither here nor there: not for the moment. Suffice to say I am always going to be sympathetic to organisations like Privacy International and Liberty, where they coherently sustain their philosophical and intellectual positions.

But even Apple, for me, fails to convince entirely.

Apple is part of the most vengeful, destructive and self-enriching place on earth: Silicon Valley has forever been the paradigm and definer of ghost protocols as applied to the business of attracting advertising.

As far as the British government and GCHQ is concerned, and from my position as a recent postgraduate in International Criminal Justice, with a dissertation on this very subject of the interface between surveillance and citizenship, I would like to suggest a different approach, and reaction, altogether.

Part of my dissertation touches on the importance of sousveillance, not in its traditional mode where it watches and reports on bad Big Brother but, rather, as a completer of the incomplete circle that traditional top-down-only surveillance has suffered from. In a recent submission to government, I have suggested that we change how we deliver on surveillance: we change how we win hearts and minds.

You win hearts and minds by achieving two things: first, by showing you want to for the right reasons; second, by not just convincing for these reasons but properly enthusing those people and organisations whose minds and hearts you need on your side.

My submission to government suggested we do just this: instead of delivering evermore fearsome messages of terror, in order that the civil liberties and essential privacies of democratic subjects and citizens be given up wholesale, and quite under duress, it would – it is my assumption and presumption – be much wiser for us to encourage people not to forget reluctantly, as if the drawing of a treasured tooth, about privacy but start much more preferably to think about the needs of community.

Rather than continue to walk the other way, rather than focus on ever-decreasing circles of engagement with fellow human beings, rather than allow the big tech corporations of a morally bankrupt Valley to continue to self-enrich obscenely out of invading the very intimacies democracy was supposed to defend, let’s give up some of those intimacies for a much better goal than making money out of advertisers: let’s give up some of those intimacies so we can, once again, as times of yore, truly want to deliver on being our brother, sister, genders-all’s keepers.

GCHQ is wrong with respect to the suggested ghost protocol. Not necessarily wrong in the technology itself: I don’t have the data to hand to take a position. No. Where it – and the British government which pays for its functioning – is utterly mistaken is in thinking that more of the same “fuck privacy, whatever you think” subtext is the right way, the best way, and the only way.

You tell me I must be spied on to live in peace: I see you as the Stasi.

You tell me you will be looking out for me by accompanying me in a dialogue of equals, where my sousveillance will have as much weight, validity and utility as your surveillance – that is to say, where we shall be peers of community safety and thrive, and growth and economic liberty till the end of time – and my response will be radically different.

If we have allowed Silicon Valley to fuck our privacy for the benefit of its shareholders, why not reconsider our positions with respect to security? Why not say, loud and proud, as proud as proud could be, that we value every human being we meet, and it is every human being we want to protect, and it is every human being we want to encourage, and it is every human being we want to include in our frames of work and pleasure.

If we must give up on intimacies, let it be so that we can live and love and thrive each other more.

And if we must protect ourselves from invaders of privacy, let it be so that Silicon Valley’s hypocritical and rapacious abuse of communities everywhere, from supply lines to end-users, and from communities of online to neo-terrorised individuals offline, be one day placed back in their rightful positions of cool.

As the sovereign individuals of their bodies personal, political, democratic, cultural and social that particularly security agency personnel of honour must surely, deep down, wish to treasure … above all.

The Guardian newspaper today

“New … look?!” – redesigning the relationship between symbolism and crime

Where we stood, before

My project is slowly moving forwards. Intuition was how it started out. Just, plainly, me seeing Snowden ten years before, and being locked away in a mental asylum for a month, without trial; not only because I saw what I shouldn’t’ve … more importantly, because I was honest and open enough to admit I couldn’t prove it.

That’s how all this started. Not out of love for a woman: out of love of natural justice.

All the times, too, that I, as an intuitive thinker, had been knocked sideways, out of the frame, away from the centre, into the long grass. No one in business likes the long grass. Long grass is for cows, and not precisely the ones who get shit done.

I spent a long time, most of my life, being manipulated by people who knew I knew and was aware I couldn’t evidence.

A man called A___ met with me a number of times whilst I lived in Chester. He once asked me if I liked children. He used invisible quotes to frame the question. I have no fucking clue why he asked me that question.

On possibly the last occasion we met privately (though, as always, in a more than public bar, and in the presence of others), we discussed the roadblocks that life seemed randomly to be sending my way at the time. He grinned that evil grin of his: “What an exquisite cruelty that is!” I smiled, and again had no fucking clue.

This, from a man who chose to ingratiate himself with me by once telling me, early on, I was the only person he trusted in the city.

You simply don’t believe that sort of conversation, nor ploy. It’s so clearly a psychological game, for some goddamn reason.

I have spent a lifetime of such conversations, without being able to evidence my impressions to the satisfaction of anyone who, otherwise, without my background of trumped-up schizophrenia, might have been gently predisposed to hearing me out.

Where we stand, this minute

And so we come to now. And what started off – in Ben Simpson, Angela McClelland, Dawn Paine, Ruth Hartnoll, Chris Morland, and Thomas Gorry’s more than capable collective teasing-out of my original ideas – as an intuitive thought capture-app, perhaps interesting but not much more than that, is now far more developed and intriguing: morphing philosophically and practically, as it is, into a fully fledged micro-expression and micro-event capturing, evidencing and investigating tool, aimed at properly and profoundly busting – perhaps for the first reliable time in history – the symbolic methods of communication and coercion used by mafias.

The mafias I mean, sincerely

When I say mafias, you will automatically think of dead horses’ heads.

But that’s not the mafias I have experienced.

Mine smile in a country I fell deeply in love with, for its culture of fab and of eloquent artistic codification.

Mine drive nice cars, but not excessively nice. They do things not to be noticed. And they use and promote tech not to make a better world, but to make a better world for a privileged few.

They’re the mafias of Wannabe IT I wrote about earlier today: and by its cruel determination, it becomes the IT of Justgottabe Me.

It makes us feel change is inevitable, and here they are right. But they deliberately obfuscate the reality of its nature: for in the “how” we will always have a choice, if we want to.

They just say, however, if you disagree with us, you’re a reptile.

Choosing choice, of course

So, of course, I now choose choice. And ask you to join me, too.

I want to deliver on all the proposed iterations for the intuitive thought capture-app and deep neural network engine, as suggested to date: from an in-housed business consulting to Health 4.0; from security, counter- and neo-terrorism applications to the gentlest and most supportive versions for a much better ongoing mental and societal health; from advertising, sales, and marketing to the biggest and most money-generating industries of pleasure-time; from the triage and exchanges of high-level domain expertise to the hunches of police officers and detectives, fighting an evermore sophisticated cyber- and digital-informed organised crime.

All of the above can be delivered, once the deep neural networks and their architecture are unlocked. My Liverpool suppliers – skilled in emotion-capture and AI-processing – are a key and intrinsic part of the development process: both intellectually and philosophically as well as technically and technologically.

But I want now – after the neo-terrorism of some tech organisations in the past two or three years, applied so clearly against not only my person but also my reputation and my business security – to be able to extend the reach of Peter Levine’s Good Democracy: that sacred civic balance between inclusiveness and efficiency.

The plan, never closed to new ideas

I would like, as already mentioned, to do a PhD in neo-terrorism, in particular in relation to symbolic communications delivered using modern information technologies.

I would like, once completed, for this to lead to a specialism in the matter, at university level, with a long life-cycle, and expectations of serious, legislative impact.

At the same time, and running parallel, I would like all my collaborators, if they are of a mind, as well as new people and countries of solid allies and similar thinkings, to engage deeply and willingly in the scoping and development of the SaaS platform and app under discussion. This software, if properly designed, will mean those who use symbolic communication shabbily to destroy lives rather than ennoble them can be rigorously denounced and reported by their victims. These victims will, perhaps for the first consistent time ever, be able to:

  1. capture what they believe they perceive;
  2. share it visually, and tangibly;
  3. have it processed, compared, contrasted and stored so that criminal justice agencies and systems the world over can begin to identify these stealthy tech, and other, mafias which have been operating for what – in my judgement – reaches back at least fifty years;
  4. receive natural and legislative justice – and so begin the lives of free democratic growth, development, business and real thrive they always deserved – which a much more sophisticated and attentive criminal justice infrastructure and narrative will be able to deliver, through the increasing use of the proposed AI of deep neural networks.

What my collaborators and I propose is that these deep neural networks be used to expand human capabilities, not substitute human thought out of the frame. Some AI proponents always wanted to monetise people off the rock. In fact, they have been wanting to do so – and claiming they will – from the 1960s, maybe before.

We are still here. Machines and humans, both

Conclusion, for the moment

Let’s not throw in any towels. Let’s just say: “Humans are great creators; deep neural networks are great informers; let’s put the informers and creators into a synergetic partnership, unbound by prejudice and a dated, unnecessarily historical, musty and tawdry ambition.”


So finally, my ask

I am looking for the following, to continue the project as it needs to be done:

  • Two partner organisations: one, a university network; the other, a corporate network. The condition: both must have cultures of absolute belief in open and sincerely honest communication, where such frankness is never punished.
  • They must be comfortable with the project lasting at least twenty years: the goal is to install the figure of neo-terrorism, particularly as delivered on the individual, into as many criminal justice systems as humanly possible, and as quickly as possible. It is absolutely essential, therefore, that everyone is aware we must aim for profound legislative impact.
  • The dynamics amongst all partners must be collaborative and synergetic. All organisations, small or big, must explicitly discard predatory ambitions via contractual obligation. Ingenuity and creativity thrive on diversity; they do not on fear of disappearance.
  • The Better Biz Me Ltd business model is not that of start-up to be sold off in five years’ time. It – or the organisation that takes up the reins – is here for the at least twenty years proposed.
  • The first product to market will need nine months’ development and testing. If as hoped, the development process will begin in the summer. If not as hoped, in any case as soon as possible.
  • All proposed iterations deserve to receive funding, and all iterations will benefit from the original deep neural architecture when developed for the first version out of the stalls.
  • The project currently dearest to its Founder’s heart is that which aims to allow victims to capture, share, evidence and store examples of symbolic communication and coercion, carried out by mafias of all kinds. We use the term mafia in its loosest sense possible: with the power of corporations as defined by their reserves of wealth, they often may have more reason to act outwith the strict blue lines of the law than the more traditionally understood mafias. This assumption may, of course, be an unfair presumption which needs calling out. The only way to call it out is by evidencing the contrary.

It would be lovely to drive this as far as it might go. It deserves to go this far. I would like to help drive it. But I am humble enough – without wishing to presume such humility – that collaborations beat single thinkers, inevitably.

So let’s collaborate.

The Ghost Ship of Wannabe IT

There’s a ghost ship which strides these lands of 21st century community and nation-state destruction from without: the extraterritorial destruction #siliconvalley surgically applies to everyone else, as per Bill Patry’s famous reference to the Melian Dialogue, the power of tech, and our need as its servants to accept its unassailability.

And this ghost ship is made up of people who once were grandly, or would in the future wish totally to become where barely before, SOMETHING in IT.

And these ghost ship sailors, crew and passengers both, are on the lookout for an iceberg as big and wreaking as the Titanic’s. And they look out for it either to prevent it from damaging definitively the little and modicum business model that currently keeps them afloat, in what we might nominally call their own lands and communities (not that they are generally VERY loyal to anything except their self-enrichment), or, on the other hand, to spring daringly from the ghost ship and ride the mentioned berg madly but, perhaps, messianically, even correctly, to the regions of polar splendour still existent in our universe.

This iceberg equals and represents the next killer application of IT: from VisiCalc onwards, and maybe cool shit before too, there have been pieces of software that have literally turned oh-so-carefully planned worlds upside down, and overnight; and have done this SO dreadfully, wonderfully, irrevocably that lives have been lost as much as gained.

And behind these applications, there are individuals of sheer genius: absolute and total genius, I say.

And the sailors of this ghost ship therefore spend their precious lives deambulating emptily, as they aim to rise to the challenge of that iceberg which may destroy them – or may finally make them.

This means identifying the geniuses behind is so important. And it makes controlling their thought and movements – physical AND intellectual – a key priority: a priority of a brutal survival the geniuses do not clearly see at first. They are but children of naive, enjoying THEIR ride.

And so for Silicon Valley, and its wannabe hangers-on, this is what these killers in potential are seen to be – assassins in-the-making of whole businesses of currently costly endeavour. Assassins either to be brought onside in no uncertain terms, or utterly neutralised: neutralised without ownership or apparent cause, but neutralised as effectively as if a visible and criminal bullet to the head.

This has happened to many good people in the last fifty years. I know this from auto-ethnographic experience, and gentle observation. As a result, I am now scoping and developing software and philosophy to uncover, share, evidence, process and make admissible in a court of law the micro-expressions and micro-events that the world of micro-computing has used from the beginning to control a democracy of potential ascendency which – as a terrible result – never HAS been allowed to raise its beautiful head.

I SHALL evidence what you have been doing. And I SHALL ensure its stream of contrastable, recordable and shareable evidence becomes admissible in courts of law across the rock.

Count on it.

Count on it, because Peter Levine is my hero.

#siliconvalley #tech #neoterrorism #meliandialogue

#billpatry #peterlevine

#gooddemocracy always

“A device of a thousand over a good meal at six” – some observations on the rapaciousness of modern #tech #philosophies

A trigger phrase, real trigger for me, is the one that says: “No pain, no gain!” It’s SUCH a trigger for me, even though I know many people believe it in real good faith. ‘Problem is that it gets hijacked by people who don’t think it’s good to expose ONESELF to pain in order to gain a better body, a brighter idea, or a finer lifestyle in the future; no, what they’re really interested in is hurting OTHERS in order to control them better.

Its propagation, almost propagandist usages, allow SOME of those who declaim it all the time to create systems and philosophies of massive business and multiplied life that serve to IMPOSE on others an OBLIGATION to HURT in the most painful and destructive of ways.

Just figure this: a man or woman loses their job, their livelihood, their ability to keep the elements off their children’s heads, and food in their beloved ones’ bellies – and not only loses all this but is encouraged to believe themselves to be at fault for their loss. And then we may one day, far too late, see it’s all because someone thousands of miles away designed a strategy long ago, behind boardroom – or garage! – doors, to deep-excavate, almost rape, wealth from communities across the globe, by designing software constitutions that only make the already rich infinitely richer.

Change is inevitable; it’s nature defo isn’t.

I repeat myself, I know.

It deserves repeating.

And now you no longer even have retail to keep you afloat. All that’s left you is the gloat of the rich as they count your ever-increasing poverties. As they wonder – fascinated and joyful, of bad – how they cracked it this mad: so you’d prefer, always, a device of a thousand over a good meal at six.

“There’s ALWAYS a choice” – a short essay on Silicon Valley, neo-terrorism, and choice

In around 2015, in an independent coffee-house in Chester UK, I met with a man called Marcus E. I had been experimenting over the previous year and a bit with devolved online networks designed to enable people-power in #tech, via independent open-source software communities.

I suggested seeing many of the things people pay for – marketing materials, templates for work, etc. – as being basic utilities in a modern world of digital, which everyone, whatever their financial standing, should have free and open access to. Almost as if aspects and tricks of even things as apparently complex as marketing should become simple reusable utilities like water, food, shelter, and Internet access.

Inalienable human rights, if you like. After all, in a world where brains make livings, shouldn’t SOME things, SOME key tools, be moved into the realm of equal opportunity?

And goodness me, I even began to explore exchange systems to substitute money. I did an interesting exposition of what could one day be, which disappeared from the web when – unbeknownst to me – the social-media channel I had used to deliver it found itself gobbled up by a competitor.

In general, over this period, I did stuff quite cogently, quite exploratively, as is my wont.

I even got to make a formal presentation at a conference held by a Welsh university of journalism of considerable reputation, because of the things I was doing.

Some months before, I had already met, in the same city, with a man who claimed to have the ear of one of the giants of search: the ear of the founder that is – the man himself. I was offered a chance to use a brand-new Skype-killer as a tool for continuing my language-training business. He said I could have it for £10,000. It was already functioning spectacularly in Asia, so he suggested.

I didn’t take him up on it, though was very grateful for the offer. I suggested we continued talking. We left it at that.

But then the meeting with Mr Marcus.

It was a sunny morning, I remember. He represented a political party which had been up to its neck in Iraq, around the time I was falsely imprisoned on a trumped-up diagnosis of schizophrenia: this was 2003.

Mr Marcus came to me with a warning: he said there were a lot of very wealthy people out there, and they were watching. I didn’t appreciate it as a warning at the time. In fact, it’s only now I really do.

I couldn’t work out at the time if he meant the Murdoch empire, given the friction that later emerged between his party and the mogul. I now believe firmly no. The warnings did not come from Mr Murdoch, nor anyone connected with his company.

I think, in truth, Mr Marcus was a messenger for #siliconvalley. Someone wasn’t happy that I was suggesting, quite logically and persistently, that the changes the Valley was perpetuating were a choice THEY had made, not an inevitability WE all had to accept. (Let me add, at this point, that when I say Silicon Valley, I mean not only the tech industry traditionally understood to be located there, but other places, organisations and peoples who strongly identify with, support, and sustain its core philosophies re how best we should implement the world of technology.)

Since then, doors don’t open. Not for long. Not as fully as they could. Primarily, perhaps, because I still refuse to believe the only change we can contemplate is that which the Valley prefers.

And that’s all I can say for the moment. Until, maybe, a formal investigation is mounted. Tbh, I think my story, and the story of people like me, is to tech what “The Insider” was to Big Tobacco.

It would be good to find an Al Pacino, at this point. Though I am clearly NOT Russell Crowe!


Recently, then, and this perhaps explains better my drivers, I have begun to conceptualise a figure called #neoterrorism, particularly where directed at and imposed on the individual: the tools are of #bigdata, and are commonly used in aggressive #marketing. They involve #surveillancecapitalism’s broader toolkit to a highly focussed end: achieve defined and shared objectives of preventing concrete, targeted individuals from achieving their long-term democratic life goals and growth, where such goals and growth CANNOT be encouraged to align with the Valley’s.

I believed Mr Marcus was a messenger for such proponents of the neo-terrorism I now describe: strategies and acts which I am strongly convinced have been exerted on me from at least 2016, and maybe from as long ago as 2002.

And I believe this is something many other people have suffered dearly too: people whose only crime has been to strongly, finely, grandly believe that whilst change is inevitable – of course it is! – a choice ALWAYS exists around HOW … if we want it to.

It’s time we showed them we did.

Join me.

Detecting, evidencing and using micro-events in courts of law: democracy’s new security challenge

I have spoken and written quite a lot on intuition and its value as a higher form of domain expertise and process. Also, on how intuitive thinkers are often passed over by society, its businesses, and other institutions – either because we associate such thinking mainly with the female gender, and therefore to be disparaged anyway; or because even its exponents will admit to date it has been difficult to evidence. Without evidence, most of modern society ignores you.

In the past few weeks I have realised, through personal experience, that I now understand how intuition – ie arational thinking – actually works; furthermore, why we should pay far more attention not only to how it works but also to what outcomes and conclusions it delivers, if we want to have a cat in hell’s chance of surviving as a species; and finally, why we should create and scope the tools I will formulate in this post which I think now can deliver a real opportunity, for the first time in history, to rationally capture, evidence, and make admissable in courts of law and other structured environments, the data which intuition uncovers regularly.

For me, intuitive people capture what have been termed micro-expressions: flickers of emotion, feeling and intellectual position that flit across people’s faces and amongst crowd behaviours. Too small to point to, everyone has experienced them. Some live their lives constructively through such detections: they often go into caring professions, is my judgement. Very many people, however, use their perception and delivery of micro-expressions to manage colleagues and workforces under their charge, or even voters for goodness sake, without ever having to take ownership for such acts. This is how the stealthy bullying – which I believe that elements of the tech industry, and governments which align, have conducted against me since at least 2016, and possibly as early as 2002 – is delivered without anyone being able to prove to anyone what’s happening.

An example yesterday: a group of men came and sat down next to me, in a coffee-shop. There was so little room between the windows and my chair, they had to stand up, unable to avail themselves even of the stools they had under the windowsills.

There was literally no reason to sit next to me; no comfort; no why which could justify their choice.

Fortunately, a very nice teacher and her lovely daughter sat down next to me, and I was able to turn away my attention.

However, one of the big burly, old-style bouncer-type men closest to me (my prejudices coming through here, it is clear) kept on depositing a huge holder of sugar right next to me. He would take it off, I would concentrate on my conversation, and then he would pointedly replace it back so I couldn’t avoid clocking.

It may have been nothing. But it could’ve been something. The word “sugar” has symbolic meanings, and as an example of stealthy communication symbolism is most powerful, for legal code has failed quite dramatically to typify the meanings of – and therefore punish their usage, more importantly the intentionalities behind – such symbolic terms.

Bullying often uses symbolism.

It’s the very best way to avoid detection, and uncovering, as I say.

It’s my strong belief, now, that intuition in its detecting of micro-expressions is also just as capable of detecting micro-events. And such micro-events, charged with massive symbolic meanings, are used by all sides in the wars of spies; in the battles of organised crime against democratic society; and even in what to date has been seen to be the relatively benign impact of advertising on society’s functioning.

Advertising is one thing: make it, shape it, drop it into the public consciousness, and then let them take it or leave it.

But things as aggressive as account-based marketing, where big data is used to identify real (not apparent) influencers of purchasing decisions, to curry their favours – sometimes really rather intrusively – and to define and structure the virtual worlds which potential targets actually see, is perhaps one step beyond where we might want all this to lead.

The above is still considered ethical: it’s up to each practitioner to decide how important profit is and where their own ethical code lies.

But let’s imagine the same tools exist – and it is my judgement they must – for organised crime to shape ordinary people’s environments over similar periods of time as per account-based marketing habitually does: imagine everything – or most everything – you see belongs to the world of a man or woman or organisation looking to prevent – at the very least define overbearingly, so alignment happens with their interests only not yours – your democratic growth, life, development and business activity.

Imagine the film “Gaslight”, but writ large in our modern-day world. Every citizen and subject, as per Snowden’s revelations in 2013, no longer at the mercy of your own country’s security apparatuses, but far more depressingly and despairingly at the every whim and desire and depraved instinct of an organised crime, suddenly using the stealth of symbolic micro-expressiveness and micro-event delivery, on unimaginable and increasingly cyber-shaped basis. And this crime may just as easily slide into corporate as equal traditional dark.

This, then, brings me to the subject of the software tools and platform I am looking to deliver, in order to evidence to the eventual satisfaction of courts of law everywhere the symbolic language I describe:

  1. In particular, micro-expressions, and the micro-events created through such expressions, used by enemies of the UK – and of democratic allies who would deserve to collaborate in the project – in order to communicate stealthily and covertly amongst themselves, and coerce democratic subjects and citizens into taking decisions that simply go against their life, business and long-term interests in general, whilst always remaining undetected.
  2. It’s manifestly true that the state and its legitimate security agencies and actors will need to continue to use such covert and stealthy symbolism, and associated wider communication tools, themselves, but it is also clear that if I, on my lonesome, can – out of a simple sequence of personal thought experiments – devise a process to identify and evidence, and share and make admissable in all courts of law in the future, the kind of covert communication that organised crime, foreign spies, criminals of industrial espionage, those who illegally and out of real bad faith massage supposedly free markets by tracking concrete innovators, companies and potential competitors, as well as those who literally make wars through cyber-symbolisms, then our enemies multiple will also be doing this – or, if not right now, very soon will.

It is, therefore, my suggestion that before they get their micro-expression, micro-event and intuition-capture software tools in place, we need to do it first. But, like now.

Really like now.

Below, to finish, some draft thoughts, occurrences if you like, re how the future might look in this field:

Suggestions for workstreams to be carried out

Me, do a PhD as described in my draft proposal a while back. Simultaneously, we should design, scope, and lead – all collaboratively – R&D on the below.

A law school/department with a focus on:

Industrial espionage
Free market disruption
Security, in all senses
Conflict (ie peace maintenance/war avoidance – aiming to go to peace, not go to war) studies

Tech and law:

AR (assisted reality: that is, image- and symbolic-based communication support, the traditional perception of which usually generates the kind of “data” that leads to intuitive insights), and the use of AI – ie deep neural networks – to process, evidence and, eventually, make admissable intuitive thinking in courts of law everywhere
Other relevant tech which interfaces between software code and legal code, and extends the reach of the latter into areas of human activity currently not demonstrable

Law and tech philosophy:

Legal code, and its identification and typification of totally new types of crimes due to the introduction of AI and other technologies

Implementation needs

Partners (need to have strong cultures and strength of purpose)
Agency engagements and collaborative spirits open to new ways of thinking: new as they stand; new as they emerge using the very same tools in the future to devise totally new, not text-based ways of conceptualising the world around us

I am agnostic about ways; though firm about goals.

Firm but flexible, as per my dissertation advice, way back when!

I would like a process though, rather than me simply tossing out ideas in isolation. Process always beats single thinkers. And process becomes embeddable and sustainable.

The organisations need to be strong enough to face down the criminal and covert tendencies I am looking to evidence: the micro-events built from micro-expressions, used by enemies of democratic states to communicate amongst themselves, as well as coerce subjects and citizens of the aforementioned states. Our states may, it is true, need to use these ways themselves to protect, serve and defend us, but if enemies learn to detect and evidence our micro-expressiveness and micro-events before we can theirs, then the situation will get exponentially worse.

I would love a team to drive this for the next twenty years. It deserves it. The detection, evidencing, and legal punishment of micro-expressiveness and micro-events that undermine democratic process and business freedoms should be our long-term goal.

Some ideas, anyways. Some ideas, always given in as good a faith as I can muster. Always that.

Never anything else.

“When symbols crash violently” – a short #ar #video

Someone asked in my presence recently: “How do you revive last year’s spirit?” I didn’t answer them: first, I didn’t want them to think I was eavesdropping; second, in any case, you can’t; and third, really, terribly, last year was so shit you wouldn’t want to revive it anyways.

When you’ve been bullied as I have been, so consistently, so cruelly, so knowledgeably, so lawlessly, you just know there is nothing to revive.

I will never now give up on using artistic thinking patterns to give ordinary people the software capture, visualisation, and evidencing tools to break as many mafias as possible.

From the tech industries in both their documented bad and their currently undocumented stealth to the more traditional ways that gangs and lords of local turf have been using to deliver control over helpless neighbourhoods, it HAS to be my mission in life to drive this forwards.

And that is what it shall become.

“The Age of Surveillance Capitalism” – the neo-terrorism of tech companies directed at the individual

I saw this book in Blackwell’s, Liverpool today. For a while, without realising it existed, I have been writing about the concept of #neoterrorism – in particular that directed at the individual. I feel this book has to be talking about the same.

In fact, I have suffered it myself – mainly in Dublin, Ireland, over the past three years, but increasingly as I limit myself to Liverpool and the surrounding areas, it has begun to happen over here as well.

I firmly believe it has involved conspiracy by people who approached me as potential clients of good faith; as possible investors of solvent face; and as people and organisations with general interests in so many of my philosophies and projects.

The ante was upped when I applied for a considerable defence contract not long ago: stranger things started to happen around and about me, designed I feel to imperil the continuing survival of my personal self and company entity.

And especially re the most recent project: make it possible to capture #human #intuition and so evidence it, to the satisfaction of any court of law, using tools of #deepneuralnetworks in collaboration with these subtle and symbolic ways of thinking.

The consequence of such detection tools being developed would be that stealthy and toxic #nudgetheory – applied to engineer such neo-terrorism – could be uncovered much more easily: it would be possible for us to prove our perceptions of #microevents much more convincingly, and therefore undermine the powers of such corporate – and more traditional – #mafias.

I believe many people and organisations which have had occasion to interface with me over the past couple of years have been tempted by such dynamics. I believe the latter are currently so ingrained, so systemic, so aggressive, no one can fully escape their grasp.

And so it is why, now, I wish to dedicate the rest of my life to developing a university school of neo-terrorism, as a driver of much more democratic societies, everywhere. For tech is beautiful, when beautiful it is. But when it is pure profit, it becomes anything but pure.

“Three things I would like to do:” – a declaration of legal insistence

Three things I would like to do:

1. Set up a law school whose focus shall be #neoterrorism, particularly on the individual, in modern globalised and technological societies, with particular reference to the toxic misuse of #nudgetheory.
2. Develop software tools which will allow human #intuition of such neo-terrorism to be evidenced, one day to the satisfaction of any court of law anywhere.
3. Drive ongoing research into the practice of #human-#AI collaboration, with particular reference to how such increased interactions will affect #legalcode’s ability to identify and typify new #crimes and totally revolutionary ways of thinking and communicating: and specifically, where – through their novelty and unexpected uses of AI to deliver their outcomes – they may even escape detection over considerable timeframes.

Three things I would like to remain:

1. #British, where I may continue to be proud of my country’s historic openness to new ideas, new peoples, and valuable, informing and intelligent traditions.
2. #Happy, because John Lennon thought this was a good idea too.
3. #Inlove with the most beautiful thrive I have ever stumbled across, for the rest of my life.

Not much more, tbh. But it’s a start. No?

“My enemy is your enemy is their enemy is everyone’s enemy” – a short #essay on the consequences of #extrademocratic activity

Our democracy would be unfit for purpose, even if it wasn’t deliberately and willingly gamed. We have no time, after attempting to reach end-of-month, in order that we might actively participate. For to participate, we need space to think. And that space is denied us. No thinking-time, no democracy of real.

It’s time to change this: we need a different way.

I am driving the development of an #AI-informed #intuitioncapture machine.

The initial applications suggested have been in the fields of #neoterrorism and #counterterrorism; in #businessconsulting; in #mentalhealth; and in #marketing and #advertising, amongst others. But whilst all the above will be pursued vigorously with the goal of delivering an equitable and finally more HUMAN society, one new application now comes to mind which before did not even imagine itself.

All voting systems which to date have been designed to replace paper ballots only repeat the same hyper-primitive “yes/no” approach of the black pencilled cross against a candidate’s name or a party list.

What if, instead, we began to vote on the basis of capturing and evidencing our most intuitive, intimate and subconscious thinking, in order that the most unmediated responses be processed, filtered and assessed? No half-truths; no politically-massaged porkies; no professionally-engineered or media-shaped obfuscations of the masses: simply, only, justly, the truths about exactly what the populace feels on absolutely any subject under the sun.

And why.

To be presented by transparently understood AI, and evaluated by the best human thinkers in political and social sciences.

As democracy stands, it clearly badly falls. The corporations of transnational lobbying own our societies and deliver much zemiological pain. This they do deliberately, in a wholly calculated way, and with surgical precision.

It’s time we devised a truth machine fit for democratic discourse. It’s time that truth was prized of – was prised from – ALL the participants of this beautiful life.

It’s time to do all this.

It’s time we did.


Visiting, volunteering, studying and imbibing, since late 2015, FACT Liverpool’s ways of colliding art, tech, people and place has given me the confidence to flower my software project aimed at capturing and evidencing intuitive thought.

Art can change the world, if we choose not to paint or film or sculpt or architect with it but rather, far more imagineeringly, THINK with it.

A totally otherworld example of how artists can vigorously impact on the real, hard-nosed, business world of SUSTAINABLE bottom-line can be found at the link below.

I met the artist responsible at FACT about a year ago now. All too briefly; but totally blown away by his vertiginously promiscuous psychosis of the everywhere wise.

I don’t mean psychosis as in mad or even mildly dysfunctional. I mean it more as now I am achieving myself: not even thinking out the box. Simply, no boxes I care to believe in at all.

Silos don’t exist in Yoshinari Nishiki’s world. As in the psychiatry of Laing and Esterson, there are some alleged facts of life we need to start denying as aggressively as we conceive possible!


“Licence” – a short #ar #essay

#liverpool seen, sensed, struggled with and finally #understood

When they size you up to be a CHOCOLATE-BOX city only – with true grandeur for the visitor and tourist but no BRAIN-JOBS for the residents – you wonder why.

I was recently told two things:

1. No one in Liverpool who has real money ever bets on disruption: on the disruption that makes futures different and so RICH for the intelligences and places which MANAGE to bet.
2. One of the biggest property developers in Liverpool has given up on the region as a digital force, preferring to funnel everything of that nature to nearby MANCHESTER, and so make of Liverpool simply the city of tourism fab.

When I heard this, I refused to believe the wisdoms being expressed. That is to say, a) I couldn’t believe such homegrown money lacked so much in BALLS and foresight; and b) that the developer was right to have decided thus.

But now I have begun to reluctantly accept that the man who told me these things both, the same man, a man from Liverpool whom I am wealthy enough to be able to call a good friend, was right on both counts. And worse, that the developer in question actually, sadly, seems to know what they are talking about.

I am sorry, so sorry. I cannot move mountains, only SOULS. And there comes a time when you can no longer help those who will not help themselves.

I will remain as a resident of this wonderful city for the foreseeable, but if the money, the real money, says “Nay!” just one passive-aggressive moment more, I shall look immediately elsewhere for the future of HUMONGOUS digital.

No threat.

Not even a promise.

Just a bewilderment.

Change is inevitable, but its nature is not …

Had the very best, innovative time of my life today, in a place that serves to make it clear that human beings and tech can be human, indeed.

Change is inevitable. The nature of that change is not.

I’ve been signed up by Alder Hey NHS Foundation Trust to participate in their innovation programme for SMEs. It’s the best thing that’s happened to me in my life so far. The initial meeting with Hannah Randles was one of those moments when you realise SOME people, and therefore their institutions too, understand COMPLETELY the requirements and frameworks essential for truly disruptive innovation: disruptive not as in Rand’s Silicon Valley but as in (r)evolutionary shifts in favour of regions, community, the individual, AND a fab broad diversity.

Alder Hey, its Innovation Hub, its peoples all … demonstrate like no other space I have ever engaged with, none I swear, absolutely none, that we CAN take charge of change and fashion it to include, efficiently. It doesn’t have to concentrate wealth in distant pockets.

And the wealth of a parent and child exchanging smiles as they repeat-visit their hospital of grand, with joy and effervescent anticipation both, is the wealthiest tech of all.

We SHALL disrupt in health, business organisation … so very very much.

And be human as we do.

“When we need Health 4.0, for our workforces …?”

The below article comes my way via David Ainsworth who I follow on LinkedIn. Personally, and business-wise, I have always been engaged more by the hows of life than the whats. Of course, both are actually just as important as the other.

But making small tweaks to big challenges does deliver results. It’s a nano-technology approach: technology more as in Foucault than Silicon Valley.

Why I am so interested in capturing and evidencing intuitive thought: that is to say, high-level domain expertise.

The frustration that builds up anywhere in all thinking peoples when you just KNOW how something NEEDS TO CHANGE, and you don’t share a common language with the policy- or decision-maker (nor they with you), contributes greatly to both a wider frustration in, and degradation of, the workplace … as well as serious issues being left unresolved.

Two of the real problems that, in health in particular, I am looking to resolve with the intuitive thought capture-, visualisation- and evidencing-platform we are developing at Better Biz Me Ltd.

On digital gangsterism

The Guardian publishes a report on what British democracy now formally describes as #digital #gangsterism:

‘A digital gangster destroying democracy: the damning verdict on Facebook’

I myself experienced what I have described as #neoterrorism in #dublin #ireland recently. But digital gangsterism will suffice, if that is the term we prefer to use more widely.

In this parliamentary assessment of – in this case – Facebook’s multiple violences to our democratic discourse and practice, wider conclusions about #siliconvalley and its cavalier relationship with democratically elected legislatures since whenever can be drawn.

My own experience of the Valley’s terrorism against my person, specifically the Dublin manifestation of it, and more specifically the one-bit coat-tailers who lap up all instructions to kowtow to the overarching narrative, will one day have its rightful revealing. In the meantime, my digital home shall lie – lie in the sense of truthfully, frankly, sincerely! – in #liverpool and its region: you never abandoned me, even when there was a time I kinda did you.

For this, I always shall love yous. Always.

“Coining a new United Kingdom”

The future of this new nation-state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, post-Brexit I mean, and always if we so wish it, will not lie in the tech of tech but, rather, in the tech and ingenuity of our bespoke, quite different business structures, adapted to a world and 21st century where wealth won’t profit from people’s lives so much as people’s lives from wealth.

If we so wish, of course.

If we so wish.

“My mission: to make money for all the people of the Liverpool region”*

More than anything else, the events of this evening have convinced me my mission must be one, and one only: to bring into Liverpool, the city that has changed my life, the richest and wealthiest of futures of ambition and aspiration.

I shall continue, with all my efforts, to strive to deliver a software publisher based in the region, whose business structure shall remain focussed IN PERPETUITY on enriching the whole of Liverpool and its immediate surroundings; and this, I repeat, for the foreseeable.

And this publisher shall have the primary mission of enabling the voices of those who have suffered the kind of abuse which I – clearly enough – have been exposed to, whilst at the same time generating the wealth that this grand city has always deserved to be able to spend: first and foremost, I mean, on its fabulous peoples.

My mission, therefore, is simple: use my brain to make the Liverpool region the wealthiest in Europe.

Whatever the final outcome of Brexit.

And despite the many rats which are now choosing to leave this beautiful ship.

For by their final leaving, they leave it suddenly far more intact.

* Footnote and background to today’s post:

“Brexit: the opportunity”

I am convinced that we need to grasp post-Brexit with ambition. It will be hard, it will be fraught with distrust, it will be riddled like Blackpool rock with localisms and strange prides – prides that may yet lead to our fall; but tbh, I begin also to realise it’s a fabulous opportunity to start from scratch in many aspects.

I have started to put out feelers to people here in Liverpool, whose business acumen and humanity both I value about as highly as any human being might ever of another, in relation to a project of future whose shape I have nurtured very very close (uncharacteristically for me) to my deepest thoughts and drivers for a very long time.

I have long admired the Guardian’s Scott Trust as a business model:

I admire it because in its three iterations its philosophy has continued to be to advantage the newspaper and its projects – its liberal and proactively progressive engagement with modern democracy, culture and diversity – by protecting it from hostile takeover bids which those who already control much of the world’s tools to edit and distribute reality would otherwise make.

My proposal? A Scott Trust for a Brexit-framing software publisher.

More in the months to come.

Attribution: gallery photos taken recently at the #brokensymmetries exhibition at FACT Liverpool, UK.

#justdont #neoterrorism #neoterrorists #dublin #ireland #tech

Neo-terrorism involves terrorising specific targeted individuals: identifying, via their social media and networks, as well as other outputs and data, their psychological pressure-points and mental weaknesses.

What they fear, what they are ashamed of, what they are not so proud of.

What they yearn after, what they would like to believe, who they fall in love with, who they would like for them to love them back.

And then these neo-terrorists, what they do – mercilessly, cruelly, as fascist as fascist ever was – is press the buttons, as hard as their neo-terrorism can enable. Until total capitulation and submission to the interests of the neo-terrorists, or – in extremis – even the death of the victim, is delivered as the final, telling, wholly antidemocratic result.

The Better Biz Me Mental Health Wavelength app

Good morning everyone. We have snow in #liverpool. Beautiful!

The latest iteration and frontend proposed for the Better Biz Me suite of intuitive thought capture-apps is the Mental Health Wavelength app.

More, in due time.


#mentalhealth #selfrepair #collaboration not #investigation


My mission over the past two years and a half for sure – maybe the past fifty-six – has been to uncover the societal harm that criminal and civil laws – both! – are designed by their sponsors and legislators to obviate.

In fact, my mission, without me realising, has been that of zemiology’s.

Upton Sinclair was right. When your salary depends on something , and therefore someone, you won’t see stuff as it really is: you’ll see it as you need it to be.

And you’ll agree with those who then sell an edition: a very very limited edition of reality.

Limited editions, by limited minds.


Some further ideas in the form of a hashtagged brainstorming:

#glocalism of the good sort, not #tree
#glocalism with #europe #p2p
#glocalism with #global #partners #p2p
#liverpool #unitedkingdom #greatbritain #northernireland #p2p

#brexit #postbrexit #digitalfutures

#independence of #thought not #echochambers

#interdependence of #business not #dependence

#openness to #culturaldissonance and #culturalrub

equitable #sustainability instead of rollover #availability (not #tree)

new #partnerships to share, not #oldflames which ash

#youth already, #everybody now

respectful #subjects and empowered #citizens both
#objects never again

What we can offer each other:

What we can offer each other:

  • Be financial partners
  • Be tech partners
  • Be philosophical and intellectual partners
  • Be strategic partners
  • Be connectors for each other with an ever-changing world
  • Be builders of grand designs and better delivery
  • Disrupt to share not concentrate wealth: when I say share, I mean the resources should go through as many good-faith pockets as possible as they circulate rather than sit
  • Disrupt to create a new and radically tech-based democracy of the 21st century: a Good Peter-Levine Democracy of inclusion and efficiency
  • Disrupt to protect the good from the objectively toxic, in people, politics, business, and thrive
  • Divide to embrace: act strategically and discretely, but never noxiously
  • Be positive never negative in our approaches, messages and belief systems
  • Use technologies which build in trust
  • Use trust to create more trust
  • Use all this trust to create more society everywhere
  • Enjoy our achievements, and evangelise kindly
  • Be compassionate; understanding where possible; and flexible but firm
  • And finally, never underestimate the power of prejudice as – at the same time – we always value the beautifully contradicting wisdoms of a very human recapitulation, and redemption
  • And one final final thing: be always #friendly – never #naive.


#glocalism of the good sort, not #tree

“Neo-terrorism vs Assisted realities” – a thought experiment (in several points of bullet)

Supposition 1

Large corporations defend their interests without exception.*
Mafias act in the same way.
Sovereign governments will do no less.*

Supposition 2

The tools and tactics of street spycraft, where people are tracked, and – using principles of nudge theory – encouraged to commit to certain, often subliminally absorbed, behaviours, are available to all the parties mentioned in Supposition 1.

Supposition 3

We have the most intelligent generation of people, young and old, at the moment: as a result, primarily, of a decade and a half, perhaps more for some, of Internet and web access.

One assumes, where the interest and motivations exist, that the above-mentioned tools and tactics of street spycraft are available just as strategically to the young and old, the extraordinarily ordinary, as to those who consider themselves part of the controlling elites.

Supposition 4

Let’s assume that a lot of now highly educated people, young and old, from all walks of life, and all political and religious belief systems, unite – for some reason and in some way – in order to use everything the elites have used against them since time immemorial, but in particular since the advent of a supremely connected global village, in order that they might be able to counteract the violence of such neoliberalism.

This they manage, without the elites being usefully aware of what is happening.

A sting is therefore planned.

A concrete narrative is devised.

Everyone works under the cover of sophisticated encryption software available for very low cost in a totally legal way.

The parties mentioned in Supposition 1 think they own the turf, still.

What they don’t realise is that the victor, by force of pure intelligent thought, size, distribution, and motivation has won the war before they go to war.

Supposition 5

Let’s finally suppose that the neo-terrorism, conducted by the neoliberals for decades against sovereign citizens, subjects, states and other organisations, both business and political, finds its match in the assisted realities devised, designed and delivered by these new actors on what has been the global stage of subliminal and, more often than not, malicious nudge.

Only thing being that these fab people of AR aim, instead, to defend not an evermore constricting status quo of the greedy but expand our current existences in the direction of a future of societal collaboration: a society of efficiency which is driven – by philosophical inevitably and definition – through the innate efficacies of inclusion.

* It has to be admitted that not all of these interests may coincide.

Once upon a very digital time …

“Once upon a very digital time …” – a story of a very personal neo-terrorism


This is a story, only a story. Its events, as described, bear no relation to anyone, living or dead. The places in which the story is located are used because – in the absence of the necessary time to carry out further research – the author has chosen to remember bricks and mortar, and concrete and glass, of his previous experience.

It adds to the feeling of veracity, and encourages more reliably the suspension of disbelief. Everything a good piece of fiction should do.

Chapter 1

Back, way back, near the beginnings of total surveillance, a man fell in love with a woman, and a woman fell in love with a man. Let’s call the man W. Let’s call the woman J.

W stood for William, but he had always felt more a letter. J stood for Julia, because she had been born in a month of glorious summer.

So the two of them fell in love, and had a wonderful though all-too-brief encounter.

This is beginning to sound like a film.

For many important reasons, the relationship had to stop. Firstly, it was wrong. Secondly, whether wrong or not, it had the potential to damage the lives of so many people. Sometimes love overcomes everything, it is true. But sometimes love overcomes its own capacity to love. This, here, right then, the latter we mean, was the case to hand.

And so it ended. And W fell into a deep, deep depression of many years. And J remarried. And their lives apparently took separate courses. But the thirst for justice, or the desire to deliver injustice, or the need to hurt back when hurt, grappled with the better judgement of not only J and W, it also thrust its cruel hand in the direction of W’s brother, who we shall call C; of J’s daughter, who we shall call P, meaning Patricia; and of the boyfriend of the latter, called K, which stands for Kevin.

Five parties.

Four who would eventually understand what was going to happen: who would understand the crime they were going to commit.

One who was going to have absolutely no idea, no clear idea beyond that which the other four would let slip, about what the others would be doing to him.

For years.

For more than a decade.

For perhaps sixteen years, in one way or other.

Who knows?

For J’s daughter P, a clever person like her mother, discovered the tragedy of love’s breakage, and directly attributed it to her mother’s remarrying – kind of on a rebound – a man who, in himself, would only deliver misery and violence.

‘If only,’ thought P.

‘If only the relationship between J and W had prospered. And why did it not?’ P would ask herself. ‘Because W, not my beloved mother, chose for it not to.’

P decided, at that point, that something had to be done. Either recover a lost love for a beloved parent, giving W a chance to make real amends – or destroy the man who, alternatively, would continue to resist all attempts at making up.

Chapter 2

Whilst P discovered this relationship, as well as the impact it had had, it has to be said, on both parties involved, she may not at this time have been fully aware of the participation of a third party: the above-mentioned C, or W’s brother.

For it only came to light a little later that whilst J had been traumatised by her stunted affair with W, this had not stopped her from having a similar relationship with C, both before and after the one conducted with W.

It had, however, come to W’s notice. Being the fairly affable sort he was, however, he felt it was a) none of his business to care, and b) none of his business to enquire after. To him it seriously mattered little. It may be the case that, to this day, P still is not aware of the detail, or does not believe it. Or maybe, doesn’t need to worry about it. For C continued the relationship he had in real privacy and behind doors of closed. W proceeded not to, on both counts.

It soon became clear to P that real damage could be done to her family by a man who chose neither to buckle under to a love he never was entirely comfortable with, nor buckle under to a belt of a past of silences and abuse, as violent – psychologically at least – as any mafia out there.

The closed nature of family clan mirrored in the village.

The global village of digital.

Chapter 3

It is supposed that when push comes to shove, most people prefer the loyalty of kinship to the loyalty of truth.

W was not like this. That was why he became Enemy Nº 1 of the Group of Four. The Digital Group of Four, let it be said. W’s onetime lover, J; W’s brother, C; J’s daughter, P. And P’s boyfriend, K.

It soon became clear, after a couple of contacts with him, guarded as they had to be, that W was not for turning. He didn’t know exactly what he wanted; he did know, when he met it, what he didn’t.

Actually, he did know what he wanted. He was a real fan of “The X-Files”. He fairly considered himself a Fox Mulder. Not in aptitudes or skillsets or position, or even balls. But in the belief in a truth somewhere out there, for sure.

P’s boyfriend was as clever as she was. A cokehead and a grasper it had to be admitted, but neither condition presupposes an inability to progress in life to the satisfaction of most in polite society.

It soon became clear that W, his way of thinking, his public activity online (of which there was plenty), his instincts to egalitarianism, and his desire to make a better world for all rather than revert – so easily – to what most would see as his own quite understandable, quite acceptable, pecuniary self-interest, was one day going to need some kind of neutralisation: most importantly, he knew about his brother C’s affair with J, and if he could not be brought back into the family fold of hermetic – if one day, for example, he spilt the reams in one way or another – the consequences would be too dreadful: to have it publicly revealed that three members of the same family had had such complicated relationships was just … never to be contemplated. Especially when two of them would be high-profile individuals in their respective communities.

Something had to be done.

Chapter 4

Then it became clear that something had to be done just a little bit sooner than everyone expected. W’s partner, S for Sandra, came into a huge amount of ready cash. No one knew how. Everyone knew how much.

C, W’s brother, was horrified when he discovered S was coming into this money. C refused his sister-in-law a month-long bridging loan, to deal with legal costs. This made receiving the monies a challenge in itself, as C had intended it become; though eventually, much to his chagrin, these monies did arrive to S.

J, meanwhile, was terribly interested in the property S had abroad, and asked W, once directly via a strange email, for details of this property.

It’s clear the Group of Four wanted to evaluate the dangers of possible legal or business developments they couldn’t so easily control.

This could change the playing-field, the ground rules, the whole sheer house of cards, its robustness, and their assumptions.

For they had assumed W would be hovering on the edge of poverty all his life.

The tech savvy three of the Group of Four actually were proactively ensuring, all this time, that W did remain poor: it is so easy, once you find where someone lives, to move their stuff so they don’t know why that router stops working, why that new router stops working, why the replacement for both previous routers stops working, why web-connected devices multiple stop working … oh, it’s so easy once you know how.

And useful, when someone needs the Internet connection to earn a video-conferenced living. In fact, C even had a conversation with W once: he did so insist that the latter accept the thesis of a book called “Who moved my cheese?” – i.e. when we think shit is happening, it’s just our imagination in overdrive. Perhaps innocuously meant, was this conversation. Or, perhaps, in order that W simply be freaked out, rather than begin to investigate seriously, the ever-lengthening string of coincidences making his Internet-dependent business difficult to drive.

Plausible deniability in the software and firmware industries, from EULAs that promise nothing more than a terrifying ride (alongside their corresponding bugs), to upgrades on hardware which don’t do much more than bork just before a university assignment has to be sent in … it’s always been a fabulous invisibility cloak.

It became an obsession of P’s, as she stalked the online activity of W over the next eleven years. Assiduously, stealthily, she began to pull together systems to assess and structure a psychological profile. Her boyfriend, K, a man of nascent tech if there ever was one, with a network of relevant and apposite connections only increasing as his own business grew and expanded, manifestly served to both technically and – most importantly – psychologically deepen and sophisticate the actions of the Group of Four.

As the tools became better, they realised the increasing opportunity, as well as the urgency given the unexpected and unpredicted money W would in theory now have access to, in order that W’s world be shaped in their benefit.

The Group of Four soon began to put a plan in place: destroy W by using AI to analyse his psychological weak-points from his prolific and ever-expanding online output. Then the idea was to leak limited events into his real world, in much the same way as a letter/phonecall scam: events which would serve to ‘creep him out’ in an unattributable way, as the popular parlance might have it. This ‘creeping out’ would serve to generate, at extremely low cost and risk to the actors responsible, a confirmation bias in W’s perceptions that would make him begin to see shadows in all shade, everywhere.

The possibilities of such direct engagement – and with the small chance still of a turning of the recalcitrant to the straight and narrow of the aforementioned hermetic – could only grow exponentially when, through K’s connections with the medium-sized tech industry in his country of residence and dealings, it became possible to invite W, to his real gratification it has to be said, especially considering his objective lack of business weight and presence, to a high-profile conference on the subject of Future, and its management.

The Group of Four laid out a gameplan to the Future team: engage W in a field experiment, with his explicit permission (or possibly without – there was always the chance that the Future team was equally unscrupulous, mates of mates you see, more than likely going to be fully approving of the goals being posited), in order that their AI tech might be tested to the max, using nudge theory to push and coax and influence W, over a period of two years, to either finally (in itself, possibly by now unpredictably) turn to the light they offered – or be pushed off the brink by his own desperate hand.

P then had an interview with W, where she let it be understood that if he stopped doing certain things and started doing others, in a period of around two years an unspecified opportunity would raise his lifestyle to the restaurant where she apparently had, out of the goodness of her heart, chosen to invite him that evening.

A strange offer.

Not to be rejected out of hand, of course.

To be considered, always.

Chapter 5

Spanner in the works.

W fell in love again, this time disastrously with P.

For a long time, it became impossible to shrug the feeling off. He didn’t stalk back, but he did begin to codify his feelings.

C, W’s brother, J, W’s onetime lover, and P, the daughter of the latter, all discovered – indeed, it’s possible they had planned for and anticipated in the psychology of the overarching gameplan – the codification. They allowed it to continue for a while. When enough data was available, they sent threatening emails and texts saying that any references to any persons of the family should be removed from the web immediately.

W was terrified, and proceeded to remove the offending items immediately. Actually, he removed entire websites, whatever their content.

He couldn’t, however, avoid the feeling that maybe P had in some way been on his side, rather than against him: a double-agent of sorts, though not technically so.

Dynamically speaking, he understood.

He remained in love, and it was a challenging matter indeed. A challenging matter.

And a real error of judgement, in all respects.

Chapter 6

The long-term gameplan to destroy W and his life was very subtle, very sly, and very … well, double-whammy.

The idea was to adjust his environment slightly, in multiple ways, over the years, so he would be driven mad again, as indeed similar acts by others had driven him mad during the initial times of total surveillance already referred to.

W wondered, in all his tremendous output, if the tool now to be used against him had once been a blogpost he had written. Had this been the case, they would surely have had reason to think: “How cool to use his idea against him.”

W remembered again the forceful coaxing in the direction of the text “Who moved my cheese?”, always at the hand of that Skype conversation with his brother, C; it seemed the latter so wanted his sibling to attribute the strange and minimal disjunctions in his life to a matter of life, never design.

In many ways, through such amends to the physical space he occupied, they also encouraged W to split off from his partner, for two main reasons:

  1. If W was eventually for turning, his partner would not – in their judgement, and for many practical reasons – be an adequate one in any respect for the roles they had in mind.
  2. If W was not for turning, the fact that his partner did provide a kind of emotional touchstone of curious certainty against the world they were trying to force him to enter, alongside her sum of still very ready cash, meant that unpredictable futures could still take place outside their long-calculated plans.

Their ingenuity knew no limits. They were well connected: we mean technologically, as well as in respect of wealth and those resources, always physical and intellectual, that the monied can borrow from.

It soon became apparent that something extremely curious was happening to W’s physical spaces.  A particular type of woman’s handbag brand would repeat itself at what seemed key moments in his day, with some apparent significance, but not obvious in meaning.

Was it confirmation bias? Was it a paranoid pattern? Or was it something far more structured? W really had no sense of where the answer might properly lie.

At one point, W even was randomly engaged in conversation by a woman holding one of the bags in question. “I bet you wonder why you see so many of these bags,” she asserted, rather than asked. “Bet you’d like to know.”

He began to feel that something meant something, but wasn’t sure if he wasn’t going as mad as in total surveillance times.

The Group of Four’s plan was working.

In the event, it was all to lead up, one day, to a meeting with P’s boyfriend, though at the time of the meeting W was suddenly unaware of the immediate implications of his surroundings, and the nature of the event itself.

Firstly, he didn’t know K as P’s boyfriend. They had been on the point of meeting on one occasion, but for some reason this never materialised. Secondly, he didn’t connect, as fearfully as might have been predicted for his mental wellbeing, the fact that the K’s initials coincided with the handbag brand that had – to his mind – begun to so accost him over the previous two years.

Chapter 7

It may have been a defence mechanism.

A defence mechanism to protect him from mentally falling apart during the meeting itself.

A priori, the meeting would have been intended to deliver the the goal of making W utterly crumble, as he would be immediately expected to suddenly look back over his recent life, connecting the dots a la Steve Jobs but in an entirely malicious manner.

And remember: alone, and ignored by everyone in the country he had found himself in (not his own, either of birth or residence), during a particularly, normally friendly, and generally partying time of the year.

The only meetup planned which materialised over that period was the one he now experienced with K.

Yes. When K told W he was obese, and needed to leave his previous acquaintances and friends behind, and carry out what he most feared, K was using his refined skillset of verbal manipulations to dip a dagger of privilege into the blood of a quite ordinary man.

It would be clear, if W was to go over the brink and not accept K’s offer during the meeting to “wash cars for a few years – nothing like starting from the bottom; oh, and send me that one-pager for your project, will you?”, that in the light of the former’s more recent online outpourings of a relatively paranoid edge, even if he did survive a suicide attempt there would be plenty of damning text for a professional psychiatrist to quite reasonably assume that this was a case of mental ill-health, located in the infirmity of an individual, and not mental distress, located in the environment around an individual.

What changed, then, between the early years of total surveillance when W did find his freedom removed by the state for a while – and now?

In the following years of life, age and experience, precisely the spycraft that had destroyed his sense of sanity – and made it easy for him and others to misinterpret the real reasons for his madness – had become a learning curve of intelligent soldiership: W had learnt, in an ad hoc way, but acquired quite profoundly all the same, to understand street spycraft for what it was – even though a spy he was not.

That’s what ended up protecting him from these neo-spies of digital figital, and their terribly convoluted long-term agendas. ‘In a digital world,’ so W said to himself, ‘one-bit idiots is what they are. That’s what’s protected me from the bad-tech guys this time round. The fact that through this process and horror I already had been, when murky interests had once so tragically driven me mad. No more. No more …’

Sometimes big corporations are bad, yes. But ambitions to become big, to have it within one’s coke-laced body, drives regional players to all kinds of turf violence of equal terrorism of new.

And that’s what they did to W. ‘Bad enough abroad,’ he mused to himself – even as their supposedly friendly security agencies cared not one little bit.

‘Criminal when performed in the UK, however: criminal against a sovereign subject like myself. Bloody goddamn criminal.’