Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Red Cliffs Of Dawlish
Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Sunday, 22 January 2017

Displacement & Distraction = Powerless Protest




It seems more accurate to describe our "current democracy" as closer to a "public sounding off" or "letting off steam" as the true type of participation with which people interact with politics. The most recent example is the hyperventilating as above: People resorting to "Displacement Activities":-

  • Marching up and down
  • Chanting and engaging in righteous condemning activities
  • Joining large groups of other such people.
  • Making a lot of noise and jumping up and down...
The above tweet was an amusing joke I noticed on twitter and makes a useful contrast: That protest may be full of expression and often not very conducive expression, but falling so short of explanation of the situation. In short, people don't seem to hold any bearing of where they are, what they stand for and how they can usefully and effectively engage in politics. What happens? Protest channels this helpless energy and this distraction fills the news-media: It's almost as if the political machinery has a flow chart and this is merely one visible stage of "PROTEST" in a flow chart where people's "Input" is ticked off - as above, the above tweeter demonstrates perfectly the true utility of protest compared to expectations of participation. From this stage in the flow chart politics swiftly moves on - away from the useless people stage.

Assuming the above is very quick and general description, then we could consider what the next step in such a flow diagram might be?




The above exchange is in fact a perfect example of the implications of "Powerless Protest" to elaborate on:-

John Finn's understanding is based on an assumption he reveals in his subsequent response, but first his communication shows a couple of problems:-

  1. He's expressing an opinion without checking his own state of knowledge: "Have you actually read FLEXCIT?" And that itself is just the beginning of that journey.
  2. He sprinkles politeness and "friendliness" as substitute for the above in his communication.
It's a mistake I've unfortunately made so many times: It's a form of self-conceit that is very hard to acknowledge but if you are going to criticize then you really have to be able and competent in your ability to marshal your arguments or send them to their massacre! And one needs a lot of self-sincerity in that case to cope...



The assumption is laid bare here: "You only have an opinion and no say in strategy." This really is a couple of things:-

  1. Applicable in general to everyone concerning moving politics onto the next stage away from people - leaving people with powerless protest and possibly even encourage to be distracted in this displacement type of activity mistaking it for real political action that is real because it's effective.
  2. Dr. North provides his own answer below. But I'd suggest this is mixing up arguments: It veers away from explanation of arguments which is exactly what FLEXCIT does do (as Dr. North mentions examples of below). It literally is accepting that argument explanation must be trumped by those in power who do have a say on strategy!!!
  3. This is a remarkable claim and I suspect a claim that perhaps most people blindly, mutely and hence in behaviour STUPIDLY accept... something along the lines of "that's the way the world works". This is a sort of "abbatoir of democracy":-



































Here to point out the correct made by Dr. North's response, pointing out how much FLEXCIT asserts the "Political Context" not a "vacuum" unlike the IEA Brexit Competition papers (!). But also notice:-

  • Coherent Exit: An argument that is built up from beginning to end logically that increases explanation value if used and hence if used...
  • Rational Negotiation - again insistence to avoid basing arguments on lies, on games such as "Brinkmanship" (see historic errors that manifest from this) etc.
There is also another response: Without following these principles in democracy we do end up with an alternative result: Powerless Protest, Pointless Voting in both of the pictures above: Twitter and the Sheep pictures.

From The Harrogate Agenda:-
"Our objective is to recover power. Our focus is on the acquisition of power. And once we ourselves, the people, hold the power, we can then attend to the many problems and injustices that plague modern society. But without power, there is only protest – and we achieve nothing of any lasting value."

The political abberations follow from this:-

1. Recognition of our sovereignty

"One consequence of Germany losing the Second World War was that the success or state to the Third Reich had imposed upon it a new constitution, in which British legal experts had a part to play.  It is thus highly significant that Article 20 of that constitution (the Basic Law) declares that all state authority comes from the people. Although not specifically stated, the effect of this was to recognise that the German people are sovereign. 

Despite the British effectively bequeathing this principle to a nation it had a hand in vanquishing, it does not apply to the people of the United Kingdom.  Instead, we have the doctrine of “Parliamentary sovereignty”. Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future 
Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty, says the Parliamentary website, is the most important part of the UK constitution.

We believe this should change, not least because, in the name of parliamentary sovereignty, our MPs have a licence to ignore the wishes of the people and to hand power to bodies such as the European Union. This has led to a situation where UK courts recognise the supremancy of EU law in preference to our own, and can strike down laws made by Parliament.

However, we do not believe that we should make a statement along the lines of the German constitution, declaring the source of power. What can be made can be unmade.  What can be granted can be rescinded.  Instead, we take our guidance from the United States constitution, which starts with the words: “We the people … ”. In so doing, it signifies that the fount of all political power stems from the people, but there is no declaration of sovereignty as such. Sovereignty is regarded as inalienable. Because of that, it cannot be taken away by any body, governmental or otherwise."
If we can start seeing how people actually integrate into politics currently, we might also begin to think ahead a bit further imagining our political flow chart: What is the next step on that?

Well, again, I think you can spot this for yourself if you pay close attention: One example on The Andrew Marr Show today is the fact that Mrs. May's incoherence in her speech allows other politicians their own fiefdoms from which to operate from such as the previously, heavily discredited Nick Clegg, who now suddenly appears to be a politician of wise caution and sensible suggestions. In fact these politicians manufacture their own almost inscrutable dynamics to people where so much is veiled and muddied, that ensures their arguments always appear to be FROM THE SOURCE OF POWER (which is not the people) to which people cannot possibly fathom... "experts" or "authorities" or "chiefs" or "celebrities" even too.

Compare: Rational Argument egs from Dr. North's EUReferendum.com:
With the monopoly of Arguments by these imposters:-

They are imposters on account of from first principles derived above in The Harrogate Agenda (again John Finn above is probably highly representative of most people falling under the opposite delusion created by these "authorities") but also on performance which betrays that they too are just as ignorant as most "ordinary voters" are and are made to feel by their useless demonstrations and protests. By dint of their superior prestige in society they act more coolly and appear thus ever more superior - the trappings of power.

Let's try and therefore combine all the thoughts and ideas above and make a useful prediction: What the hell will happen with Brexit given all the noise?

If we consider the above, it seems likely that the politicians are much more involved in allowing people to demonstrate and protest mistaking this as democracy before they themselves then use various political fudges to ascertain how much political power they really are in control of. Thus the options may present themselves if we use this as our guide:-
  • the EFTA/EEA option and it's auxillery options as per FLEXCIT is too clearly too rational and visible to be ostensibly chosen. The power dynamic would be too exposed and out of control by the politicians in the UK and EU members.
  • If we had voted Remain however the other problem would have been how to deal with the UK while the rest of the EU engage in a New Treaty. Again the power dynamic under stress.
  • Attenuating out Brexit into fudged language and backroom deals and popular sounding nostrums and generally blurring and blending it's meanings as far away from coherence as possible and closer towards, "Who said what" and hence how many prestigious consensus can be sold to peoples across Europe, then I think we'll see a variation on a New Treaty and some renamed Association Membership balancing the Non-EUROS with the EUROS members.
Dr. North has already warned this is exactly what you'd expect from Mrs. May stupid speech (again incoherent but people accepting superior opinion instead of rational coherent argument + being able to protest too and then add on further bullshit eg brinkmanship sounding ever-so clever); this is nothing new to be said.

But what I believe I have achieved, far from perfectly, is link this expected result with the roots of failure of democracy and power: As again already pointed out with people failing to understand the true nature of the Brexit vote previously: It was always a test of people to rise above themselves and be worthy of living and running a real democracy of relations between each other: Which they failed even at the same time as apparently winning against the Establishment. Cue the politicians reassert their former roles once again with zero opposition permissible.

That Twitter comparison above is food for thought: The inchoate animal-like anger-fear mixture at a perceived threat to the self = probably most voters?

Tuesday, 17 January 2017

May's Brexit Gambit: Cheap Parlour Games




It wasn't the strategic masterclass perhaps we all hoped for... ! (Excuse the humorous, modern day Oracle that is "google").



[GERMAN] "Sollte es das Ziel von Theresa May gewesen sein, Europa mit einer Flut von Adjektiven zu überschwemmen, dann war sie an diesem Tag überaus erfolgreich. Großbritannien werde nach dem Brexit fairer, vereinter und weltoffener, sagte die Premierministerin, ein sicheres, wohlhabendes, tolerantes, globales Land. Ein verlässlicher Partner, bereitwilliger Verbündeter, enger Freund.

Unter der Welle an oberflächlichen Nettigkeiten kam vorne am Rednerpult im Lancaster House aber bald etwas Härteres zum Vorschein. Die steinerne Frau May. Sollte der Rest Europas nicht mitziehen und Großbritannien während der Brexit-Verhandlungen sogar bestrafen, sagte die Regierungschefin, dann habe das für alle ungute Folgen. Das war keine Versöhnungsansprache, sondern ein Katalog von Forderungen mit einer Prise Drohung. Viele ihrer Sätze begannen mit: Ich will."


[ENGLISH] "If Theresa May's goal was to flood Europe with a flood of adjectives, she was very successful on that day. According to the Brexit, Britain would be a fair, united and cosmopolitan country, said the Prime Minister, a safe, prosperous, tolerant, global country. A reliable partner, willing ally, close friend.

Under the wave of superficial niceties, however, something harder came to light at the front of the lectern at the Lancaster House. The stone woman, May. If the rest of Europe were not to go with it and even punish Great Britain during the Brexit negotiations, the government said, then this had consequences for all. This was not a question of reconciliation, but a catalog of demands with a pinch of threat. Many of her sentences began with: I want."

I made my opinion very clear about how Brexit negotiations should (and probably will) begin in the previous blog whatever "conflagration of words" is heaped onto the "bonfire of vanities", this Fahrenheit 451. I notice two former Leave Alliance bloggers are (gleefully) joining in concerning FLEXCIT being thrown on too: Flexcit is dead & Flexit is dead. Is FLEXCIT a straw dog?

But this blog is a subject about Mrs. May and her value as a "LEADER". Her speech as the Germans are able to easily deconstruct shows a leader of this type:-

1. Style over substance
2. More concerned about impression with others than a centred self.
3. "I want, I want, I want," like the cries of a baby.
4. Someone who speaks a lot (of adjectives) instead of acting decisively.

In all the maelstrom and firestorm of the speech, created by so many stupid writers, none of them can hide the above results from Mrs. May speech that reveal what kind of leader she is for Brexit: A cowardly politician who's childish communication is the only real source of danger to what otherwise is a complex web of the networks and relationships between people in the EU and out of the EU.

For example, how do the Germans see this speech and this leader? As above. I have limited experience of Germans, except a number of flatmates I've lived with; three or four such people, who have been excellent people with very high standards. In particular my last German flatmate. So how about in a speech as a great leader considering the "other" people on the other side of the deal as part of the speech? I think that would be great leadership and example of the people of the UK, being represented to others by Mrs. May - which is what she's really doing ultimately as Prime Minister. But instead: These "cheap parlour games".




Monday, 16 January 2017

Black & White Brexit: Time to Go


Go (9x9)

I have not found the current news-media very interesting for the last few months concerning Brexit. This statement has been made frequently and there's a couple of distinctions to make about it.

First, it needs to be repeated because the quality lacking in the news-media needs to be made more visible and more audible to more people. Secondly, however, repeating it is not the solution. Investigating why the news-media should matter at all is worth thinking about. Here, the little formula can be applied:-
(1) New(s) → Exciting → Interesting?

It's clear that something new grabs our attention. Cats make perfect test subject on this, whenever I let one into my room it likes to investigate new objects or objects in new positions from the previous visit (I'm time-sharing my room with these nocturnal creatures!). Actually, instead of paying any attention to the British News-Media, which is so hopeless, it's better to revisit for example The Great Deception, and the current page I'm on, p.358 New Edition (Referendum edition) concerning how so much legislation passed through so many thousands of various bodies not actually a part of the EU itself. This rings true today, but is updated in FLEXCIT as part of the framing against "globalization" progressing the "story" further from the original framing of how the EU manages to be designed to work through current institutions as per The Great Deception story
in the early 2000's.

What is new may likely be the least interesting thing, but it seems exciting and hence sells "news"...

Hence, it's with a little pleasure to investigate a German news ource and spurn the British News-Media instead as worthless on reporting of Philip Hammond, our present Chancellor:-




They, too need the "new" to be "exciting" with a craptastic title. As for the content of the interview, it's not much better, but just to enjoy avoiding the worthless British news-media and perhaps indicate even crap German news is better than our crap British news-media!
(2) Travel → Jobs → Immigration → British Vote
This line is taking a simple everyday concept people can all grasp such as travelling from country to country and productively in the case of jobs and work and then setting it in contention with what apparently British people opposed in their vote: Migration.

This little track is then set against the more abstract line:-
(3) Capitalism → Free Trade (between nations) → Freedom of Movement (conducive)
Both these tracks then crash headlong into "Immigration", according to the progress of questioning by the German interviewer. Of course this problem then explicates apparently the nature of the Political Problem that the UK and Germany now face with each other:
(4) A problem in their successful working relationship
What I find very stupid, is the emphasis on "threat" in the title, which echoes most of the recent very stupid New-Media titles, foremost amongst them the British News-Media , to check with google news briefly:-
  • UK Set to Choose Sharp Break From European Union (New York Times)
  • The political gulf over Brexit is growing at an alarming rate (Financial Times)
  • Ireland: Brexit vote forces Dublin to seek new EU friends (Financial Times)
  • May's call for 'clean and hard' Brexit to benefit all (Australian)
  • Brexit: UK 'could change economic model' if single market access denied (BBC)
  • If the City vs Brussels is like a game of Jenga, it's possible both sides could lose (Guardian)
  • Whether she's pursuing a hard Brexit or not, Theresa May needs to stop accusing us all of 'subverting democracy' (Independent)
Even from this arbitrary sample, the language has significantly changed (thank the lord) from conflating Europe =/= EU! or EU =/= Single Market (not to mention Customs Union vs Customs Cooperation or Internal Market (acquis communautaire) vs European Economic Area (acquis applicable to EEA Treaty). Thanks to Lost Leonardo for pointing this subtle yet essential shift out in the legacy news-media.

There's actually a recent wider framing of historic and ultimate causes brought up over at EUReferendum.com by one of the commentators ScepticSid: The ultimate causes of Brexit: history, culture, and geography. Who knows? Pan out even more and perhaps see further and more yet again?

And here the interview goes in an interesting direction:-

UK/US are brought up due to Brexit/Trump presumably but Hammond compares the relationship difference in terms of:-
(5) UK → US = Security
(6) UK → EU = Economic
With the caveat that the UK is in the EU Economic sphere but at the US end of the spectrum within that sphere. Here the pressures on relationships are again in the abstract: Forces, Uncertainty, Time impacting negatively on relationships. There's a final bone thrown to the "young": It's true this category (nebulous at best) raises images of renewal, the future, energy and growth. But the young are predominantly far from political genius' and this again is something the "news" in general creates aberrations of: "The cult of the young". In fact "Fake News" is a theme that I spotted by Sophie Ridge in a newspaper article on the 18th November, 2016:-

 Sophie Ridge: 18th November, 2016

Christopher Booker’s column: lost childhoods, barmy Brexits, and tidal power fantasies
"How revealing of the desperate muddle our Brexit debate has got into were all those headlines last week over the interview between Theresa May and Sophy Ridge of Sky News. Mrs May, they told us, wants us to “leave the single market”, triggering a further costly slump in the value of the pound. It is true that Ms Ridge repeatedly asked Mrs May whether we were going to leave the single market.

But what Mrs May actually replied, as several times before, was that she wants us to remain “within” the single market. If Ms Ridge had been more on the ball, she would have pounced on this to ask how, outside the EU, such a thing is possible.  She could have pointed out (as I have been consistently doing here) that there is only one conceivable way in which, on leaving the EU, we could still remain “within” the single market."
 Again to extend ideas, if "Fake News" how about "Fake People" also? What about "Fake Democracy" run by "Fake People" who also seem very close to "Fake News" which then goes on about complaining about "Fake News" but not "Fake Democracy"?


Brexit: an epidemic of complacency

"One of the oddest things I've been finding in my background research on the potential effects of a "walk away" from the Article 50 negotiations, leaving us relying solely on WTO rules, is how little information or discussion there is on the potential consequences.

There is an endless procession of people saying we should "just leave" and take up the WTO option – the latest being Bill Clarke in the letters column of The Sunday Telegraph, who says there is no need to reach agreement with the 27 EU Member States. But, like the idiot Goodman in Conservative Home, it is perilously clear that Clarke and most of the others advocating a "walk away" can have no idea of what this entails. 
These people, it would seem, not only want us to jump off the edge of a cliff, they want us to do it blindfold and in the dark, mentored by people who are unable to tell us whether the ledge gives way to a six-inch or thousand-foot fall. And merely to ask is to be condemned for making things needlessly complicated."

Equally, there's many groups that are fake. Brexit is not about finding a "check-mate" solution as above, but about acquiring "Just enough territory" or area control as this particular game of Go requires for, to quote FLEXCIT:-

"Leaving the EU will have significant geopolitical and economic advantages. But we believe it is unrealistic to expect a clean break, immediately unravelling forty-three years of integration in a single step. Therefore, we have set out a process of phased separation and recovery.

In all, we identify six phases. The first deals with the legal process of
withdrawing from the EU, with the aim of concluding an agreement within the initial two year period allowed in the Article 50 negotiations. In this, we seek continued participation in the EU's Single Market."

Go (game) & Opening Moves:-

"Despite its relatively simple rules, Go is very complex, even more so than chess, and possesses more possibilities than the total number of atoms in the visible universe. Compared to chess, Go has both a larger board with more scope for play and longer games, and, on average, many more alternatives to consider per move.

In the opening of the game, players usually play in the corners of the board first, as the presence of two edges makes it easier for them to surround territory and establish their stones. After the corners, focus moves to the sides, where there is still one edge to support a player's stones. Opening moves are generally on the third and fourth line from the edge, with occasional moves on the second and fifth lines. In general, stones on the third line offer stability and are good defensive moves, whereas stones on the fourth line influence more of the board and are good attacking moves. The opening is the most difficult part of the game for professional players and takes a disproportionate amount of the playing time. "

Sunday, 8 January 2017

Brexit Plans: "Where's My Flying Car?"




Personally, I've always had an inkling that "flying cars" were no more than "Pegasus"; that is to say combining two different elements of imagination to create a new combination eg "Horse + Bird Wings" = Flying Horse (or even Angel being a similar combination (Human + Bird Wings). Or "Car + Airplane wings" = "Flying car". I don't think I've held a deep expectation of seeing futuristic flying cars which is a staple of some science fiction visions of the future. Apparently many people, by contrast did expect such things, particularly when growing up in the 50's and 60's?

Instead, in some other science fiction visions, the emphasis was not so much on new-fangled objects as the trends and patterns of various forces that shape our societies such as economics and supply chains. These stories make some interesting visions of the conflict in human behaviour interacting within these forces. But that's a digression.

The vision of the above "flying car" super-imposed on "Budget Airlines" is to make a quick and simple illustration: A lot of the demands being placed upon "What sort of Brexit" are entirely likely to draw from the same error process:-

1. Take current object.
2. Search for another current object
3. Create desirable combination.
4. Make plans based on what is now leading to what will be.

Voilà "There's my Brexit plan, the best that money and the top brains can buy!

What actually happened between 50's/60's eventually led to what we're all so familiar with today: Budget Airlines - dozens a and dozens of them! Those invisible forces at work in economics and technology and the scale and complexity and duration, all orders of magnitude and interaction which are far more complex than the simple "formula" used above: 4 steps and one giant leap and voilà!!

I think the above illustration provides all the pause for thought necessary when considering the quality of output produced by so many morons on Brexit. As to why they should produce such dross in such quantity and in such majority of numbers on the one hand the bubble effect maybe but more to the point, "The Appearance of Power" dominates the creation of ideas for the arguments about Brexit:-

1. Domination of the argument by the Establishment (Bubble Effect). 100 different voices all end up sounding like 1 opinion (Flying Cars)
2. Domineering of relationships by the Establishment (Moral Assumptions). This displaces the complexity of the arguments (Budget Airlines) ie the technical understanding of those complex and invisible forces at scales not intuitive to our minds without deep learning and understanding of knowledge domains.

Both Dr. North (http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86335) and Pete North (http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/brexit-into-abyss.html) have done heroic attempts to try to point out this difference, consistently only for shallow commentators to consistently do the very thing they've been pointed out as doing: "Where's my flying car?"

It's the sort of thing I first was drawn to reading Christopher Booker's ability to remain curiously curious about "accepted wisdom"/received nostrums and other such habits of thought in both groups and individuals:-

Today:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/07/theresa-may-must-ignore-muddled-thinking-around/


Monday, 26 December 2016

Brexit Negotiations: "Over By Christmas."

In the previous blog, I mentioned (or dramatically if you prefer) 'revealed' an idea for my own reasons for pursuing an interesting in the affairs of politicians of the UK concerning Brexit: In a word: "Giri".

But there's that idea of "duty" and then there's blind stupidity or obedience in social hierarchy at a truly mass scale of people. When I think of this idea, it reminds me of the words and beliefs of all the so many people during the months from June-December 1914, a similar number and the same months in fact from June-December 2016, coincidentally:-



'We’ll be home by Christmas’: the departure of the 1st Battalion of the Mid-Kent Volunteers for the front from Royal Tunbridge Wells in 1914 Photo: Popperfoto/Getty Images


If we are to learn and improve, then we have to remember our mistakes. And before we remember our mistakes we have to be honest enough with ourselves to be able to see our mistakes for what they are first before we can accurately begin remembering them.

This is a process which is currently operating under the recent experience, almost still the present continuous of the Referendum of the UK on EU Membership and the result of that Referendum: Leave (aka British Exit "Brexit": The Withdrawal of the UK from the EU according to Article 50 community rules). To quote Dr. RAE North, Brexit: a year of opportunity:-
"Traditionally in this long interregnum between Christmas and the New Year, the newspapers fill their space with retrospectives. This year, there is plenty for them to write about, so much so that Brexit will be struggling to compete.

Much of what will be written about Brexit over the next weeks will be reheated material that was scarcely worth reading first time around, and so little does the media have to offer that even vaguely original articles have so little merit that one struggles to read to the end of them. And we can certainly do without the "project fear" still on offer from the Independent. 

Just occasionally, though, we see an article that is actually worth reading – even if one has to go to the New York Times
 for it."

A lot of blind egos will pop up at this stage and say stupid things: "Leaving was bad" (I was only just looking at the stupid twitter accounts of Scientists for EU who are talking to the equally stupid "leave everything now" twitter users: A sort of Red Cape + Bull Fight contest devolving into trivial posturing before your eyes...). Competition of egos for competition's sake? War for war's sake? How terribly stupid.

But this blog is not a pointless exercise in blind nostalgia nor brow-beating for the pleasure of pointing out how stupid people especially in large groups can act. Only today on the BBC iPlayer there is the Select Committees: Exiting The EU repeat viewing of David Davies doing a remarkably good impression of David Brent (The Office) in answering questions about Brexit. There's skill in both characters and hence that is not a lofty dig at David Davies competence or character, it's merely pointing out that there's been so many public relations announcements about Brexit that have turned upside down, gone back to front and then back again, U-turned, reversed and so on. It's a similar experience to the "Over by Christmas" mood of the beginning of the war here captured eloquently, the divergence of expectations:-
"War was romantic. War was colourful flags, spiked helmets and flashing sabers. War was an adventure. Those called to arms would be heroes, defending their homelands and way of life. Over By Christmas: August-December 1914 examines these romantic notions colliding with the harsh realities of war."
The real stupidity is that so many people continue to act as if blinded and unaware of all these contradictions. Or let's now get to the point: Most if not just about everyone will end up with "false memory" of how Brexit occurred and why. Instead it'll continue to drag out for many years to come until it's as normal as what is currently or was normal before: Being an EU member and all the mischaracterizations that the politicians previously used for that false memory:-
  • At the heart of Europe
  • In the EU but not run by the EU
  • A major player in the club
  • A seat at the top table
  • A voice of reason for free trade, liberalization of red tape.
  • An ally of Germany balancing against the socialist tendencies of France.
And all that fucking crap! You have to laugh at how quaint it's fast already becoming to hear those which were all such the rage only greater than 12 months ago. We'll begin a whole new phase of life for "more of the same"!

Poor Remain Voters: Politicians kept you flipped on your backs all this time when it was in their power to put you right and back under your own steam.


Pointing this out is one thing, funny as it is. But the worse of it is to come and mostly not this time so much for Remainers, but Leavers who should have done a lot better than they did in the Referendum: Here's why:

The opportunity of people during the Referendum to "take control" not of the EU but of UK Politics for themselves over their politicians was mostly spurned or confused as something else. Hence FLEXCIT as a plan was not so much The Plan, as an intelligent evidence of decision-making capacity before execution through a direct democracy process. Unfortunately this idea was simply too sophisticated or else the quality of people was too low for the idea (sophistication being relative).

Such an opportunity... passed by people for much lower order demands. The politicians return to centre stage back with their "Polyglot" methods (see above) which no doubt they're relieved worked on both sides in the Referendum and hence will continue to carry on using during the negotiation process (see David Brent Davies above). People and especially people who voted Leave, your contribution is now over by your own mistakes in dealing with our own politicians: At least see those mistakes for what they are and hence remember them (faithfully) so that in the future either your future selves or others don't make the same mistakes as you did.



It's Boxing Day today, and there's two final points to make: The Negotiations are going to go on for many years to come in various forms, seriousness and caution is needed. People might decide of their own accord that if politics seems to make no progress or that politicians speak a strange language as if from another alternative reality, then they might choose to take back power/control through a more disciplined approach:-



Saturday, 17 December 2016

The Fact of FLEXCIT: "Giri 義理 "





























There's a couple of solid observations I've made since the Referendum, along the lines of how do people communicate their ideas and opinions and information about Brexit and the Referendum Question. There's two questions which can be rehearsed that mostly cover what should be reported:-
  1. "So how did you get involved in Brexit/Referendum/politics?"
  2. "So tell me how you voted / which was the correct result / make me feel better about the whole thing?"
I will get straight to the point: These questions only satisfy what little curiosity and understanding the questioner themselves currently holds, no matter what answer or information I provide, to which I have provided all sorts of varieties of answers to the above questions - all the while thinking how irrelevant such "trivia" is as if there's one answer which people think they can "lock onto". It's actually very frustrating.

The problem I notice is that any answer is treated as "trivia"; another piece of information which does not fit into their current models of understanding and you can see their response revert straight back to their previous closed conclusions: Emotionally not satisfied mostly is the result yet again arrived at. Even saying that any answer to the above won't satisfy them, is not satisfying to them or not treated seriously. Perhaps a big problem is the conditioning of answers in the form of exam answers or the newspaper "pro vs con" balanced argument? These forms are superficial to what Dr. North (2014) in his FLEXCIT speech in Dawlish pointed out is such a complex subject.

Complexity of Government/Governance: Comparing a telephone from 1950 to a modern smartphone 2014 - "there is no getting around it".

So what is so special about these two sorts of questions? Here it is: Providing an answer does not work with most people. It takes a lot more and in a lot more different ways to produce effective communication, is my finding anecdotally.

Just reading Pete North's latest review of the year: A year in Brexitland. I agree, personal life is more significant to me than politics and that is healthy attitude I think and feel. But I think there is more room for optimism than:-
"...but it will be the same people tinkering in the same old ways taking their cue from the media rather than dealing direct with the people. We will be governed through their distorted prism once more. The establishment is as healthy as ever it was. Brexit hasn't made a dent."
The fact is we know our starting point, because FLEXCIT is a "fact of existence". Thus we can begin "our future work". We also if you rewatch the video above, defeated FEAR or FUD. This is itself though the means were shoddy and somewhat through unrelated reasons, a very positive result in itself for the UK; ironic given many of the Remain voters greatest fear is to put hateful/angry people in power and thus did many such voters vote to Remain in the EU.

In the previous blog I broadly discussed the decay of politics and the sort of paralysis of inaction or ineffective response to change that erodes the wealth of nation (it's people's resourcefulness). The reverse attitude and values are needed if we are to create our own future politics, not a prisoner of history as The Great Deception suggests through so much research:-
"Giri (義理) is a Japanese value roughly corresponding to "duty", "obligation", or even "burden of obligation" in English. It is defined as "to serve one's superiors with a self-sacrificing devotion" by Namiko Abe. This value is so integral to Japanese culture that the conflict between giri and ninjō, or "human feeling", is said to have been the primary topic of Japanese drama since earlier periods in history. Today, social critics decry the diminishing influence of giri on shinjinrui, the new generations of Japan, who pursue an individualistic path in life that seems quite disparate from traditional Japanese culture."
Why should people choose to be part of a creative movement of politics when it is such a cynical arena to operate within? I can't answer for others, but for myself I'll point out the above concept from Japan of "Giri": The fact of FLEXCIT's existence, it's potent source of knowledge compels a duty to "spread" this knowledge in the ways that are effective and productive.

Creating those ways is the work that will hold most meaningful outcomes for our political futures. The forms they take will appear and be described historically as "revolutionary" if we succeed.

Sunday, 11 December 2016

Politics For The People: Decay & Creation.



























Brexit & EU Politics in the UK: A "Philip K. Dickian" sub-creation for voter consumption?

One of the major characteristics of our politics is the surreal and unreal "bubble effect" of the major arguments promoted between different groups and parties and support bases. This perogative to win the majority becomes the result as opposed to the arguments which hold the highest value to the most people.

This effect is old, described by Juvenal in Ancient Rome:-

"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace, as an offered "palliative". Its originator, Juvenal, used the phrase to decry the selfishness of common people and their neglect of wider concerns. The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the commoner.
Change "Bread & Circuses" with "Economy/Consuming & TV/Distraction", today. Those in positions of leadership find ever more convoluted ways with which to distract and cajole citizens just long enough for their apparent support. To attempt to reverse the above trend, they have completely given up on as a sub-optimal strategy for holding onto power. In a previous comment elsewhere I pointed out the origin of the word "mafioso", a combination of arabic-italian which meant:

“acting as a protector against the arrogance of the powerful,”
Here is an example of a group using power to protect before devolving into a group who uses power for it's own profit, and the modern inheritance of that group today in Italy is "parasitic" on society in that failing nation collection of states. The British state nor the EU governance has not reached that extreme, but at least with respect to the EU, if one has read The Great Deception we see it as an organization that has fossilized in it's role of "protector" in an increasingly changing world. Instead as per Dr. RAE North (2014) at EUReferendum.com:-





Incidentally, just as write the above to the very seconds ticking away, listening to The Andrew Marr Show (he's actually not on the show today), the talk how the deal will be shaped by such as "leave voters' will never accept paying a single penny" on exiting deals or such like. THIS, dear readers is the image at the beginning of this blog, it is in the land of "alternate reality" or "sub-creation" of the pen and tongue not the "Global Reality" of the previous blog post. Again the very first and very last blog posts here (or penultimate now) pointed out this ruling principle: A change in how we think about things is the beginning from which we can make progress in politics and from which failing to do so, we end up with this Philip K. Dickian "red, white and blue Brexit" bollocks/bullshit shovelled in ever higher frequency distracting and confusing voters "on the hour every hour". It's a waste of energy, a waste of attention and hence a cost on useful work done by people in progressing in dealing with real problems successfully.

Meanwhile, coming back to the EU's new horizons and role as part of "Global Governance" as per the above link, let's consider this abstracted into a general form also, again as per Dr. RAE North (2015) at EUReferendum.com:




"This, however, is not the full extent of it. An equally powerful aid to understanding is Philip Selznick's theory of bureaucracy, in which he developed (if not actually coined) the principle of "self-maintenance" as a determinant of institutional behaviour. 
Distilled to its very essence, "self-maintenance" dictates that, wherever the founding principles of an organisation might be, its structure is shaped by the characteristic and commitments of participants and influences from the external environment. From this, over time, it develops means of self-defence. 
This self-defence develops into a series of activities which Selznick defines as self-maintenance, and his particular thesis is that these activities eventually become the superior goal. In effect, as with biological entities, the need to ensure its own survival emerges as the most powerful of driving forces - taking precedence over all else." 
Just as I write this we have Nick Robinson rambling on about "accepting Freedom of Movement" pinning down Diane Abbot as if he's sniffed out a stinking great "controversy" of Labour. Again, I'll repeat this is "sub-creation" as if the Nazis won the World War II and are ruling half of North America along with the Japanese Empire of the Rising Sun, taken from Dick's The Man In The High Castle for imagery of this idea of sub-creation (a word technically defined in use of fantasy writing by J.R.R. Tolkien). If you want an example, today, of this idea, again today's blog by Dr. RAE North recounts Christopher Booker's Sunday Telegraph column at EUReferendum.com provides an immediate illustration with reference to historic trend of such "mistakes" by "the great and good" (aka argument Appeal To Authority and the mass delusion that such strongly fault-ridden decision-making process entails): Brexit: eleven judges getting it wrong.

Now if we come back to Juvenal's insights about the dangers to Civic Society (aka the decay of the relationship between state and society) involving the population of citizens:

(1) "Consumption > Production" + "↑Distraction"

With the latter masquerading this growing imbalance in societies functioning (commentators over at EUReferendum.com often referred without realizing it, to this principle at the heart of the rise and fall of civilizations) and proactively encouraged and induced by the leadership who hold onto centralized power (their interests become parasitic to the host's interests: Instead of serving, subjugating) (note: the examples referenced above to support this assertion). If you take (1) then the picture created for Brexit/EU Politics is a bit like the title picture: The Word Cloud (actually in a cloud, rather neatly!) is a huge mess of mangled meanings creating a world that looks very different and behaves very differently. A huge distraction in effect from progressing arguments and resolving problems productively.

Is such distraction necessary, however? As said, if the "foundations" of society are not in place, or are eroded over time then this seems to dictate the resulting behaviour of our politicians in commandeering the EU Referendum Campaign to such dire levels of output - almost as if this was intentional - as we might rehearse saying for the umpteemth time again: "With the EU/Brexit nothing is as it seems". Mentioning the EU above, we also mentioned the UK system of governance and that needs looking at next. In a previous comment, I made two observations:-

  1. I've never seen any reason to communicate with MP's: All I see is greedy social-manipulators working towards a group message control agenda.
  2. As for the UK, again there's predominant "democracy is the least worst option" type of conventional resignation/wisdom"  assumed by 'everyone' of no more thinking required; whereas if you look at the contradiction of this made by The Harrogate Agenda (hence it's inclusion in FLEXCIT: Stage 6)

Currently, I'm listening the journalists contribution to the above consideration and it's all "being slapped down!" and two politicians bitching with each other in ritualized but empty rhetoric of "doing politics for the people" about "immigrashion" (note: Dick's writing was very effective at warping language with just the right nuance of alternate meaning in his alternate worlds!). To illustrate this danger of growing volume of words with lowering meaning:-


The Laughing Cavalier at The Wallace Collection

The above, I took on a recent visit to The Wallace Collection, for as with "Representative Democracy" which is mostly neither representative nor democratic, the The Laughing Cavlier is neither laughing nor is he a Cavalier, either!

Again we come full circle: The current Brexit news is ephemeral, it's probably indeed a smal cog within the great machinery of modern politics, that few are aware of an even fewer understand (if any?). To conceptualize it as a sub-creation to entertain and passify, as Juvenal says, a "palliative" that takes away the keeness of pain experienced without healing the decay that has crept into the "body politic". That negative feedback painful as it may be must be listened to however. So the surface level of events are entirely forgettable, the Supreme Court will likely finish it's circus act before long and be long forgotten in time too. On the other hand, lurking and latent within every person is an opportunity to rectify the poltical decay with creation towards a more healthy and productive politics where things are as they appear and words mean what they do more so too. If one looks at Brexit: It changes nothing, the political machinery will creak along (you could call the current phase an "inverse square law" relationship of reaction management by the politicians):-

(2) Intensity (of reaction)  1/Distance²

What the f! does that mean? It means several things which were already recorded in FLEXCIT but because of the failure of our political productivity, the proactive decay of politics by politicians and journalists (and others "in power") and the seemingly eternal distraction of people by the way in which society is structured (short-hand see Juvenal), these are:-

  • Brexit as an event has been dominated by EGO not QED.
  • Hence emotional reaction takes precedence over rational reception/acceptance.
  • Due to the severity of the intensity both to the UK and the EU, it must be attenuated as a result (see distance relation above).
  • As per FLEXCIT's prediction it's inevitable that it will amount to a transitional or interim phase of withdrawal.
  • This will last years to decades.
If anyone reading has gotten this far, the above ideas about "fallacy of a 'better deal' " are seen to be what they really are: A mass delusion as part of a complex movement and management of power.

At the heart of this is the fear invoked by holding power disproportionately over others and the reactions and negative potential built up over time that this as we looked at at the beginning invariably leads to. However, Brexit itself may change nothing but: For people, some of these layers are being stripped away from central authority, and it's a question of how productively active and energized people choose to be at this juncture in time, place and people, that will lead to future results and future forms of our politics - an opportunity presents it's possible (not necessarily probable) success, with positive not negative potential:-


"Our objective is to recover power. Our focus is on the acquisition of power. And once we ourselves, the people, hold the power, we can then attend to the many problems and injustices that plague modern society. But without power, there is only protest – and we achieve nothing of any lasting value. To help us acquire power, we are adopting the original strategy of the Chartists. Like them, we felt it was vital to frame a very limited number of achievable demands – six in number. These are listed below."