A set of Praxis-based PhD-level research proposals
Means, rationale, and outcome:
The delivery of intuition validation biotools and bioweapons, in order to eliminate almost all kinds of criminal activity, including crime, neocrime, neo-terrorism on the individual, and loopholes & related zemiological acts, by 2043.
It’s suggested an intuition corporation be created alongside the academic-level research to be carried out, with the goal of preventing the expansion — over the next five years and beyond — of authoritarian governments like Hungary, and perhaps shortly Slovakia too, into full-blown totalitarian regimes such as Russia, Iran, North Korea and China:
Key deliverables of the proposed PhD-level projects
This slide-deck is a sandwich around a shorter, focussed and market-ready proposal I made a few years ago. A brief selection of slides can be found in the gallery at the top of this whitepaper.
The full deck with a downloadable pdf can be found below.
The questions we ask are twofold:
How can we rid the world of most crime in two decades from now?
If we managed to achieve this goal, would most of us consider it desirable that we did?
PhD proposal #1: Neo-terrorism on the Individual (NoI)
On a tech-driven longitudinal gaslighting, conducted by both private-sector #bigtech and public-sector #security agencies & related (from both good-actor and bad-actor states) on sovereign democratic citizens
This PhD proposal was informally presented to one northwest English university with a positive response, and formally presented to a second, my own, where not even an email response was received to reject it.
I had also contacted a UK security/university with this project, again getting no response — even as my message had been flagged up to the gentleman in question prior to my sending by one of my lecturers of the time, and had been given the go-ahead.
This was about six years ago, a considerable time before Ukraine was illegitimately attacked and placed under siege by Russia’s Putin.
In the succeeding six years, it’s clear my own previous lived and autoethnographic experience from 2002 onwards, a diary of which exists here on GB 2 Earth, alongside a related resource hub here, demonstrate quite clearly that what the UK state imprisoned me for seeing all those years ago directly enabled Russia to gaslight and dislocate Western-style democracies across the globe in the succeeding years.
I don’t feel angry that twenty years of my life have gone down the drain because of my homeland’s intransigence in this matter: except, of course, for the misery my children and my ex- had to endure as a result.
I do feel angry, however, that Ukraine has happened because people like the British felt it appropriate to play with the fire of tacitly choosing an emboldened Russia, post-Soviet Union, in order to ensure a bulwark existed in Europe in respect of a potential for increasingly confident instincts to a deeper European Union: a Union which no one in the British establishment has ever had the desire to openly support.
Brexit and its questionable delivery wasn’t assessed at all seriously by anyone close to UK Homeland Security at any point in the past two decades as a threat to British security. And if it was, they were very careful to make sure it didn’t muddy the waters of Brexit’s inglorious rise to prominence over that time.
Relationships between high-ranking UK government ministers — and even prime ministers — in respect of Russian oligarchs and other powerful friends of the Russian regime prior to Ukraine are easy to evidence, too. But MI5 cared to do nothing in this respect. They could easily have done so, via many competent and legitimate channels. They used such channels to stop small people like me, for example. Why not also Farage, Johnson, Abramovich, Rees-Mogg et al?
Indeed, only one head of British security warned us of the dangers of Britain’s increasing Russification over this period: Sir Alex Younger of SIS. MI5, on the other hand, enabled, by their lack of diligence, the ongoing hacking of Sellafield by Chinese and Russian hackers (no one in the UK security space knows, even today, if the two bad-actor states are still embedded in the nuclear-reprocessing plant’s tech or not). And then there was the foolish proposal to put Huawei 5G at the heart of the next generation of UK security communications, only prevented by Conservative backbenchers horrified at the complacency — where not idiocy — of having the thought in the first place.
If you believe yourself to be better than the enemy, you will always be less.
It’s a basic construct of cognitive and hybrid warfare.
It’s not a lesson the British currently bandy about — except as something to be dismissed.
I want to change this.
I want to work with the Youngers of our security fabric.
Wouldn’t you?
Neo-terrorism on the Individual (NoI)
Background, content, and links
An early online whitepaper on GB 2 Earth which first mentioned — and then incorporated into its philosophy — the concept of Neo-Terrorism on the Individual (NoI) can be found here:
A more recent one, with a connected series of proposed apps, can be found here:
It specifically mentions NoI here:
What follows is the lead-in to the first, draft proposal for a PhD on the subject, presented about six years ago, separately, to two English universities.
One responded supportively. The second, my own, despite me having my dissertation supervisor’s agreement to proceed, didn’t even reply to my email and enquiry.
Neo-terrorism on the individual (NOI) in a 21st century Western liberal democratic context
Cyber-bullying and democracy-gaming deepened, in an age of encroaching #ai
A proposed PhD investigation into the visual language and communication systems of neo-terrorism on the individual, in the framework of the picture superiority effect and nudge theory, and the resulting weaponisation of a mental distress aimed at modifying democratic behaviours and discourse in Western liberal democracies and their citizens
Introduction to this research proposal
My name is Mil Williams. I have a recent MA in International Criminal Justice from Liverpool John Moores University, where I took a particular interest in UN law, crimes of the powerful, surveillance and sousveillance, and the repurposing of mental health legislation for criminal justice ends.
My dissertation discussed the relationship between the modern British state and surveillance understood in its widest sense.
The four end-goals of the PhD research proposed today are:
1. To develop a body of thought and praxis which supports those who have policing responsibilities across Britain and the EU, in order that they may ultimately incorporate what this author has been recently describing as neo-terrorism on the individual (NOI) — ie cyber-bullying in the age of AI which serves to connect intimately the virtual and real worlds, to the clear detriment of sovereign subjects and their democracies — as a legal figure in legislations across the Continent, and ultimately globally.
2. Alongside the above goal, gain intellectual and financial support for developing not only the still nascent philosophies of intuitive-thought capture, evidencing, and validating, but also the software tools and platforms themselves which would deliver such possiblities.
3. With such tools to hand, and where legally evidenced and correctly validated, institute in the UK and the EU, and as a guiding principle at UN level, the legal figure of neo-terrorism on the individual as something properly detectable and punishable by law.
4. Assuming that in order for such a case to be made to a change in the law, the relevant software tools would also first need to be developed and tested, this then would form a key part of the proposed PhD research programme.
PhD proposal #2: Building the FEARless CITIZEN
Total surveillance security orthodoxies came into their own, post 9/11. They had to. The horrific theatre of the event dispensed with the lives of thousands in minutes and froze the lives of billions over the next two decades.
It was also easy to implement.
We had two templates which came together that day:
Jeremy Bentham’s #panopticon: gb2earth.com/pgtps/space
Here, a philosophy of criminal containment from centuries ago, where the key advantage was that fear was designed into a system that self-regulated criminals into not even daring to think about acting, never mind acting, was shoehorned into the second template: a template which came from a much more recent time.
More here: my 2017 Criminal Justice MA dissertation on a secular Original Sin as a latterday security orthodoxy.
What ultimately became Silicon Valley’s contribution to modern democracy — surveillance tech — even as, in the early days of startup and IT/AI, freethinking had not only been sincerely valued but rightfully encouraged and promoted.
And you may say there are exceptions in open source and so forth. And I would fiercely disagree: the admin still lords over the user in Linux as in any other software platform, thus providing a systemised way to initiate control from without, when control escapes us — as it always eventually does.
How it all went wrong: what happens when your own person becomes weaponised as an instrument of modern surveillance-tech process.
The basic concepts of neocrime/dark figure — a grey area of crime which the good guys have traditionally preferred to continue using quite as much as the bad guys will always find in it their natural environment.
So: 9/11 blindsided us all. I would never choose to attribute blame to anyone for this: it was a clear example of how machines used as extensions of creative humans — in this case, evil humans obviously — beat an orthodoxy that says all we need is better and better machines with crimefighting humans as mere extensions of the same.
9/11, then, and its necessarily terrifying, anti-democratic security philosophy of total surveillance, is not the issue here. What was done was done. Some of it delivered. Some of it didn’t. But I am certain it served to stop what was ready to destroy us all — all people of good faith, that is — within twelve months, if not less.
Where I now disagree firmly, fiercely, ferociously even, is that two decades after — hanging blindly onto this orthodoxy of machine-primacy total surveillance, even when these days it only appears to surveill ourselves in any way efficiently — we continue to allow our security #bigtech corporations to argue that all we need to fight creative criminality is even more machines and even fewer crimefighting humans capable of crimefighting such extreme criminality:
In these two decades, remember, Russia’s Putin has dislocated over and over each and every attempt of Western-style democracies to return to some semblance of the values and missions which other epochs allowed us to aspire to.
And last October 2023, machine-primacy total surveillance permitted Hamas to work for probably a year before launching their catatrosphic attacks, as they aimed — successfully in the event — to upturn the historical narrative all good people have had of the Jewish experience of life before and after World War II.
Why do I feel ferocious about this, then?
Not because of my wasted twenty years under the thumbs of an inept and complacent British Homeland Security.
No. Not that.
Rather, because the wilful and deliberate blanking of ideas like mine — not just mine, plenty of other people’s I am sure too! — has all served to unnecessarily enable Hamas, Russia and Ukraine, Iran, China, North Korea et al. We have refused to learn from events: we have learnt only to use events to remain attached to our now unthinking orthodoxies.
That is, ideas which the brutally single-minded application of security orthodoxies of total surveillance & related — NOT their fact; their application … — have dismissed wholly from serious debate around how to learn from contrary events post-9/11: events which don’t fit the mould, don’t support the rationales behind current bottom lines, and don’t allow us to affirm with any degree of confidence that we respect the enemy at all.
To conclude, then, this has led us to believe and practise the philosophy that it is enough to pursue the goal of out-spying the enemy, and no longer necessary to invest half as much in out-thinking them.
We relying on machines with humans as extensions of the same, whilst our hyper-creative hyper-criminal enemies use machines to extend their terribly inhumanity
This is the second matter I’d like us to revisit. And why once revisited, an issue we have to do something ferociously about.
