A Communication Revolution: The Flowering Of Ideas

Andrew Graham takes it upon himself to sermonize to the masses the word of "Above The Line" and the privileged and prestigious few in our society in the UK.

The above is taken from The Guardian:  If you think the UK will be in control after Brexit, dream on ~ Andrew Graham. It was selected from "Google News" = "Brexit" for the date of 17th June 2016 and appeared on the front page of these search results. It is not especially exceptional, in fact it's very ordinary and hence more representative from my consideration of scouring over such news sources and article on this subject for over 2 years and longer.

What is noticeable, however is that whereas years before such articles were an impregnable wall with a high uptick of supporting comments (god only knows who...) we see more and more that "Below The Line" the comments section often "gets straight to the point" without all the bluster and bullshitting and deception of words on the page: See above the 3 top comments. Comment 2 perfectly regurgitates the types of Remain arguments we looked at in the previous blog: The Remain Argument: A Hollow Relationship Built From Empty Promises. In fact, the tone of the actual article is interesting, if you look at the highlighted comments, we knew this was coming from the Remain argument:-

1. Dismiss
2. Threaten
3. Plead

For so long the argument on EU Membership has been "Dismissal" not engagement in our national conversation. This still carries on in vestigial form as "The Tory Party feuding" meme but little quantifies the sheer volume of news generation and political attention expended (in my opinion wastefully though likely effectively for obfuscation by politicians against the people) on this subject for so long (decades).

Whenever this Dismissal broke down, and serious consideration finally bubbled up from the depths, the FUD was effectively deployed and the graveness of an "unthinkable" exit from "the club" (or cult??) was pronounced.

Finally, even though this Referendum is premature due to our Prime Minister's bent behaviour (too much power vested in one tiny little frame spells trouble surely?), the fact the option is extant means that due consideration has had to build for the possibility of withdrawal. And hence the "Pleading" tone. In fact Pete North, No Mr Deacon, respect is earned. notices this cajoling, this use of prestigious figureheads to assert their opinion based on their own shallow engagement with the arguments and much worse - with the people themselves. Titles, reputations, measures of social success (money) and the like all tend to make such people believe their opinions carry more weight perhaps than other people? Well maybe in their own area of expertise and experience, but are they able to balance their personal perspective with a universal perspective more objective and informed of the actual arguments themselves? It does not seem so, just looking at the "thrashing around" of Philip Greene when brought to bear on the end result of BHS I think a lot of the people in the upper echelons of society have learnt only that their ability to exhibit dominant behaviour has led to success and prestige in whatever field of life and work they're involved in and you see them revert to this preferred tendency when under pressure.

 OUTRIGHT FRAUD: People will surely look back at Vote Leave's £350m LIE and Remain/Cameron/Osborne's "Brexit is the wailing and gnashing of teeth" via "Econometric Expert Studies Consensus!" and wonder what the hell possessed people to "FOLLOW" and not "QUESTION". In fact they'll likely surmise a social behavioural phenomenon of Dominance Behaviour amongst "the knaked ape" inviting and allowing such destructive deception on populations of people.

I'd argue, for a lot of people, you'll always be under the thumb of such a process in society with such types rising to the top, so-called obsession with "leaders" in business payed bloated salaries (same phenomenon in drug gangs) and people who are naturally inclined to "follow". But there is a possible way to rebalance society more evenly from this "type dominance" eg Tony Blair was a striking example here: Knowledge. I think the spread of more knowledge in society will see a greater diversity of types of people engaged in politics professionally and hence it may be considered a growing diversity of ideas flourishing in contention with finding solutions to problems. In fact we're already seeing this with the useless displays in the news-media and in our Westminster "talking-shop". And much more so online too. Looking again at the above Guardian Article, the tone of pleading is that "Our betters will only be able to look after us if we vote for how they say we should vote".

 Concerning Brexit: Those with their hands on the levers of power inform the people on "what is fit" criteria - but for whom: The Few or The Many? When ideas are free and fairly allowed to compete under actual conditions... we see in the case of the many many Brexit plans produced, only a few are viable to "generate a new population" eg “These route maps by Pro Brexit thinkers”, he said, “go by names such as Flexcit, Europe 2.0, or the Liberal Case for Leave.” (Cook’s Piece starts at about 10 minutes)

Flexcit Breaks Cover – Newsnight ~ The Brexit Door

But it's time for people to look after themselves and thereby avoid these establishment types reverting to looking after themselves through dominating the rest of the people ie "Representative Democracy" - a Fraudulent Democracy by all accounts so far?

Fortunately with commentary and a two-way communication process of Many People with Many People over for example the internet we're seeing progress by-passing the controlled channels of communication; we're also seeing the abilities of many people leading to a finer and more attuned "Bullshit Detector" that is so important to develop alongside the knowledge increase of the actual arguments and indeed the ability to understand arguments and debate and critical thinking processes as well.

So the point of this article is not only look at the actual arguments themselves, but the channels of communication and the responses to arguments and in particular the lopsided "Above The Line" tendency of Remain advocates against the "Below The Line" Leave advocates:-

 The online forum system using tree-commenting at reddit is very good structure for reading, but as the above shows very open to manipulation and dismissal of constructive comments with high information value in favour of ignorance, prejudice and stamping down on "dissenting voices" from the preferred orthodoxy at this subreddit (r-unitedkingdom). Whether or not for traffic, for groupthink amongst various regulars or other possibilities (manipulative), the same process of communication hinderance to the exchange of information and ideas...

Here we see that politics in the UK has a massive dysfunctional communication problem. But where communication channels open up to more people, more ideas and stronger ideas will become exposed to more people and more fairly:-

 EU Referendum: Flexcit v.6

 FLEXCIT V.6 - Now up to 80,000 downloads and counting...

Bringing More People Into the Referendum

Unity of Arguments from Source successfully scaled for mass distribution

Previously I used the above image to represent the inverse of argument creation: Argument distribution. In fact the idea is little different to Software release life cycle:-

"The term "release to manufacturing", also known as "going gold", is a term used when a software product is ready to be delivered or provided to the customer. This build may be digitally signed, allowing the end user to verify the integrity and authenticity of the software purchase. A copy of the RTM build known as the "gold master" or GM is sent for mass duplication. RTM precedes general availability (GA), when the product is released to the public."

With respect to the EU Referendum we have 2 primary source materials for either side of the question:-

• Remain: The Great Deception
• Leave: FLEXCIT: The Market Solution To Leaving the EU

 In the creation and understanding of these, a few experts were involved. In terms of The Great Deception, it is so important because it creates a coherent system of thinking about the EU from an historically accurate context to subsequent future behaviour by the EU and it's advocates: Knowing this allows greater understanding of subsequent important EU materials.

Likewise, FLEXCIT may itself be a specialist document, of interest to a few compared to the many voters, but this is not it's primary function, the fact it's created allows a similar coherent system of thinking and core functionality for the subsequent production of materials for the arguments on the Leave Side for Pro-moting Brexit and beyond. Such materials can continue with the fidelity of the source materials they are inherited from, but serve to scale up distribution in more accessible forms for more people to use productively.

For example:-

 Using FLEXCIT as the Source material, subsequent production of materials for distribution can be produced sustaining a unity of argument even while scaling up for mass distribution

In the above, I've added an animation for comparison:-

Just looking at it, it's excellent animation and deserves some attention on that alone. It produces some positive messages:-

1. Change from the 1970's: Soviet Russia, Internet, mass container shipping
2. Emphasis on Trade instead of Political Union
3. FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt)
4. Change is happening both to the EU and outside it.

However, it makes some tell-tale errors or "bugs":-

1. It calls a "Free Trade Area from Iceland to Turkey": This is really glossing over the details of the Single Market (EEA) and indeed confusing with Customs Union. Here is a presumptiousness.
2. Instead of building on the ideas of Trade outside the EU to boost prosperity, there is little extension of the influence of global bodies here, but instead their a certain pomposity replacing it. 
3. It antagonizes the character of the EU as an "authoratative regime" which leads to loosing information on the EU as it originally was designed and comparing this out-dated design to the aforementioned changes from the 1970's and the opportunity of a Global Relationship as much as a European one.

So, here is an example of a piece of work which was very well done, but it's distribution inserts errors into the Leave case and this is a problem that could have been avoided if the creator had consulted the superior works for the original inspiration for the ideas presented and discussed.

We can take another example in today's City AM:-

The Norway option is far from just paying into the EU without having a say ~ Hjörtur J Guðmundsson

He makes some useful contributions too (I follow him on twitter and he's productive):-

1. The correlation of EFTA (and EEA) of these prosperous non-EU members to prosperity.
2. The correction on laws from the mass error produced "75%" (he cites a Vote Leave figure of 10%) and indeed there's proactive not purely passive element to the adoption of such legal items as he mentions as compared to an EU member such as the UK which it is argued has to be more passive taker of such laws.
3. The correction that the EEA (EFTA) members pay a "Single Market fee".
4.  A comparison with the rights to sit on Global Bodies as compared to the UK is briefly pointed out.
5. EEA agreement covers only the Single Market and does not cover some major policy areas notably that may "interest" the UK.
6. 72% of Norwegians in the latest poll would reject EU membership.

However this again appears to be a Vote Leave note and negative:-

1. "This isn’t to say that Britain will simply end up with a copy of Norway’s relationship if it votes to leave. In fact, a series of bilateral treaties, the so-called Swiss model, may be better because it wouldn’t require the adoption of EU laws. Further, the UK will no doubt be able to secure a better arrangement than both countries, as even the Remain campaign admits."

There's a certain disconnect contained here that introduces errors or "bugs" as we compare this that undermines the arguments being propounded at different levels of complexity, already the view count online for City AM is >1,000 and the paper version no doubt fairly high too.

That said he does end extremely well:-

"But more importantly, by leaving and by being able to sign its own trade deals, Britain will secure a far better relationship with the rest of the world which, unlike the EU, is actually growing."

How? And here is where more inheritance from FLEXCIT and the creation of A Genuine Single Market integrated argument would have pushed the argument into a stronger position away from the cacophany of the Legacy Media and the neurotic arguments of either Vote Leave or HM Government/David Cameron. Instead the introduced error from the Vote Leave source I suspect obfuscates this development and extension of understanding in more people. What we want to compare with Political Union is Genuine Single Market that is part of the new relationship of the UK with the EU AND the relationship Globally too.

And this is how I feel about the present Referendum: To win or to lose are secondary considerations. For me it is about the fidelity of the source material and the ability to use it successfully to distribute with fidelity in further forms to more people. This is in my opinion all that matters: Failure here is a symptom of deeper failings that won't go away magically in the case of either result, I'd guess.

People at the moment are left given the introduction of errors by the idiot sophisticates of Westminster, with the conclusion:-

"It's so complicated, I don't know enough how to vote..."

I'm fairly confident with enough consistent and coordinated work by those who support The Leave Alliance, most people would feel confident enough to know how they will vote according to their own understanding.

 The biggest problem distributing arguments to people successfully is the Official Vote Leave Campaign and other incoherent sources of error that are propagated unwittingly consequentially.

Our Once And Future Sovereignty

People Are "Doomed" To Forget Original Meaning

"The demarcation between a positive or negative desire or action is not whether it gives you an immediate feeling of satisfaction but whether it ultimately results in positive or negative consequences... in the case of everyday experiences, if there are certain types of events that you do not desire, then the best method of ensuring that that event does not take place is to make sure that the causal conditions that normally give rise to that event no longer arise. Similarly if you want a particular event or experience to occur, then the logical thing to do is to seek and accumulate the causes and conditions that give rise to it." ~ Dalai Lama; The Art of Happiness

Parliament: Popular for tourist photos; meanwhile down the road...

I took the above picture yesterday after attending EU Referendum: The Leave Alliance launch. I have a very wide range of personal reactions to the event which I've not fully been able to apprehend or understand entirely. That is not to say there were not some extraordinary positive outcomes: To attend an event of very high quality which will aid in the continuous learning process personally; and the political process eventually; if that finally starts on June 24th or 10 years later...

 Dreamlike: I could not help feel as if the enormous Houses of Parliament were a political dessert and the small group meeting down the road, a tiny, unseen and unsung source; full of vitality and a well-spring to learning: Where did real power flow from?

Lost Leonardo provides a summary of the schedule of the meeting, The Leave Alliance Launch – Part I including the speakers and their contribution or representation of what they were able to offer from their own area of understanding and interest. Here is another extreme of the reaction I had to the event, not with the speakers, but with the failure of some of the listeners present. It's highly noticeable that certain modes of thinking repeat themselves via many different people; invariably each person unaware of this. There's a couple of examples that I can recall to provide a mere few of the numerous forms it takes, a couple of faces with which we can use for the purpose of making an abstract into a temporarily useful example:-

• To use moderate language to persuade "more people" to vote "our way" (leave); particularly in the media and Parliament then we will "break-through".
• How can we overcome the problem of marketing FLEXCIT to more people... to again persuade "more people" to vote "our way"?

I want to be sure, these examples are temporary variations of the central mode of thinking; which itself repeats in numerous derived forms over and over and over again. I noticed that Dr. RAE North is mistakenly the object of such subject's and the effective "verb" "To Convert".

Let's be clear, the true irony of Dominic Cummings' accusation that "followers of FLEXCIT" are a cult. And we can kill several birds with one stone here: I don't believe for a second that the group that gathered yesterday is in the business of "converting":-

1. In my previous blog The Leave Alliance: Synthesis of Arguments I asserted this group's organizational principle has a foundation in "knowledge-driven" argument" (To grasp this meaning in a simple form refer to the Dalai Lama's quote above).
2. The people involved in these groups are very ordinary, dare to go further, "normal" people. see: We are go for launch!. Compare this to the politicians EU Referendum: the race to the bottom who's behaviour is so often so extraordinarily perverse. You could invite some of your friends to form their judgement of people discussing here and they'd say it sounds just like any old pub chat about politics except if you are well-informed on the given subject you'll realize there's some really knowledgeable people present.
3. Despite so many repeated calls and attempts by so many different people to distort the strategy EU Referendum: countdown to launch and the values of these groups "to gain more followers" or even to adopt and become proponents of propaganda, they are always always rejected.
4. It has to be said, that many of the people who make this type of argument are themselves so used to the present form of politics that they take this deception as "that's how things work". This is indeed how Parliament works, Pete North: Time for yellow belly Tories to wake up: Anyone who gets in either gets converted, their ideals corrupted supposedly under the pragmatic process of "compromise" or else they are not selected or elevated via the system.
5. Finally, for such people they are in need of "remedial learning" of the above and considering the possibility of an "alternative way of organizing" political power. I hope if anyone feels as if they've made this mistake (I did when I first started reading EUReferendum.com - yes) then to consider not from their own subjective filters but to consider from the point of view of Dr. RAE North and how his limited time would be more productively and POSITIVELY spent on more people if allowed to be given the benefit of the doubt and trusted more in knowing what he is doing!
6. If on the other hand you feel you know more, then please write up your Brexit Plan and submit to the public forum of real democracy to be considered by anyone of any position in life:-

 Trust: "It does what it says on the tin!"

Point Six was made at the meeting with respect to the neglect of FLEXCIT: The Market Solution by the media and my Parliament at the same time as their neglect to call out the LIES of our Prime Minister in Office: David Cameron. How to convey this comparison effectively?

Nīþ:- 

 Functional Scolding/Insulting: Secret misdeeds and deception: The Breaking of Trust and hence The Oaths of Office

The Decay in Politics and Language; something George Orwell noted as especially dangerous:-

Look at the size of that thing! The British Prime Ministers and hence The Houses of Parliament: Guilty of the Greatest oath-breaking of the nation by order of magnitude of their respective office of state. And hence warranting the most sever of insults against their lies.

An oath of office is an oath or affirmation a person takes before undertaking the duties of an office, usually a position in government or within a religious body, although such oaths are sometimes required of officers of other organizations. Such oaths are often required by the laws of the state, religious body, or other organization before the person may actually exercise the powers of the office or any religious body. It may be administered at an inauguration, coronation, enthronement, or other ceremony connected with the taking up of office itself, or it may be administered privately. In some cases it may be administered privately and then repeated during a public ceremony.

I tried to establish that the quality of arguments is very important for the dynamic of knowledge systems which in turn is reliant on TRUST. Those arguments forming two sides from which a third choice is finally made by people in a Popular Referendum requires knowledge of both sides of the argument Leave Alliance: Synthesis of Arguments to be available in a form that allows people to interpret in a combination from their values as a people, their self-interests as individuals and their inherited learning from people who are experts in various areas from which they can believe to be true and representative of other people's perspectives to add their own (collective and individual).

Cascade Method by The Leave Alliance: Distribution of Knowledge is inverse to Argument Construction but still relies on consistency of true inheritance from their source of origin

There is only one fair way of doing this. And that is if people agree to the SAME RULES for following such a process. In a team sport, the two "teams" must agree to abide by the same rules and often the players either don't know the rules very well or else their own self-motivation or adrenaline effectively disrepairs their regard for consistently upholding the rules and the temptation to cheat enters in occassionally, and more so if they assume they can "get away with it". The same applies to who governs us. However in this Referendum, We The People are the referee: Do we agree with David Cameron's New Deal and his promises of new knowledge: Do we trust him? Or do we find out for ourselves, hold our own future ("Destiny") in our own hands?

 There were some very funny moments and comments at The Leave Alliance launch; notably Anthony Scolefield's comparison of the NATO treaty size (a couple of sides of paper) to the EU's (see Lisbon Treaty above).

 Accessible to anyone.