Induced Habits

Static

Substituting real-time obsessions, with artificial distress, was a habit deployment method! 

Some type of retaliation was expected from the subnet. Informants were part of the execution plan and part of an internal cleansing program, hence Matthew was a vital link to data associated with both the Mosaic Habits and the habit deferral scheme. 

Disregarding BM's predicament, blocking unsanctioned communications required intrusive actions. 

Interviews were mandatory so there was no hesitancy in this verbal rhythm, he casually admitted he didn't know Matthews location. The positive to negative reaction, immediately surfaced when he was questioned about the arrest procedures of Matthews father, in 1986. 

BM was aware that the ultimatum was a ploy by the super. He had used similar methods throughout his own career, but this particular question was an unexpected cognitive intrusion! 

The interview realised his own worst fears, he had no leverage. If they dug deeper and investigated the circumstance surrounding the arrest, they would discover that he had instigated the network that shielded reoffenders. His super was settling an old score and the consequences would result in his conviction. 

Internal static gave birth to a prudent explanation. In a sudden burst of raw emotion, he went on to describe the father as a degenerate thief and an abusive criminal who had groomed the next generation of thieves. He implied, his son Matthew had absconded from Birmingham, due to his father being sentenced for financial fraud. 

His monologue continued, with evidence, to substantiate a theory that Matthew was the hacker who had assisted with the fraudulent activities in the London Bank.  

The bruising performance was a well calculated response. He desensitised the internal static with an articulate display of self-control, whilst projecting distress towards the interviewer.