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:-

Global governance: EU getting too big for its boots

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:

EU Referendum: the "better deal" fallacy

"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:-

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. 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."

Power: The Castle of Illusions

Preferably this would have been a mock-up of M.C. Escher's abstract geometry-breaking style, but the above will suffice for lack of skill in this endeavour.

This blog is overdue another description of a policy (Environment + Brexit) via focused and detailed description of a subject of substance!! Going in the opposite direction, hence at the risk of adding to the cacophony... but noticing the current headline topics in politics at the moment and noticing a high quality blog post by Pete North:-

Back To Square One ~ Pete North

"If I have learned one thing from my dabbling in politics it is that knowledge is not prized. Conformity is. The rules of political progression are thus:

Firstly one must declare publicly an allegiance to an orthodoxy. One must praise it and denounce followers of opposing ideals. One must never deviate because the narrative is a closely guarded continuum. Each tribe has a leader but in each tribe there are cells. There are acolytes who are permitted a certain degree of status so long as they never challenge or contradict the high priest of the tribal orthodoxy. Dissent is punished, conformity is rewarded. 

This is so engrained in our political culture that debate has now become a form of entertainment rather than a means to an end [editor's note: Distraction Activity could substitute here also]. This explains London political culture.

Not for nothing do we call them the chattering classes. It is reflected in London based political publications where we see in full flow the dynamic of prestige and conformity over substance. What we see is the popularised mantras of the leading tribes which attract the most prestige.

We often speak of "the establishment" but there have been very few credible attempts to define what that actually means. To the left, the establishment is the banks, bosses and the "neoliberals", but this is a wholly teenage interpretation of the establishment.

The establishment is difficult to define specifically because it is an amorphous mass of competing influences. It is neither right wing nor left wing. It is simply that which cannot be removed by way of voting.

The purpose of an election is notionally to refresh the powers that be. In reality all we are doing is sending more fresh meat into the grinder into an ancient system whereby the system takes malleable and naive politicians and uses them to gain influence, be it the media, privately funded think tanks or direct political donations.

In modern times the media and think tanks are interchangeable. The media does very little thinking of its own and so there is a nexus between the media and the thinks tanks whereby old money ensures that the orthodox narratives are never challenged. Through either bribery, bullying, ridicule or sabotage, there are no limits to the lengths they will go to to suppress ideas that they themselves do not endorse or did not originate."

I highly recommend reading the full blog (certainly up to the paragraph on Fascism and for further on that subject re-read my previous blog: Politics & Power: The Power of "Will Power"). One thing I feel confident in stating: Much of the discussion of politics has poor foundations. Often the data group "tags" used to assort large groups of people into such as "left, right, libertarianism or any of the other more established labels", are extremely limited and self-limiting by the current system of politics: Reds vs Blues, as the traditional football match goes. One tribe of supporters ritualistically against another and fair enough some of the quality of football is brilliant entertainment in my opinion - but it's football of course.

Coming back to the news, today there's some highlights of "Trump vs Clinton": Go watch it and it's much easier to see the suggested above, the wider schism between rhetoric and reason; between illusion and reality. In our present debate about Brexit, it's perhaps less obvious, but as usual Dr. RAE North provides enormously helpful assistance:-

Brexit: confusion reigns	20/10/2016
Brexit: mutual recognition of standards	19/10/2016
Brexit: off the edge of a cliff	18/10/2016
see previous blogs......
see previous blogs......
see previous blogs......
see previous blogs......

There is "a kind of order within the above apparent chaotic pattern" in all the above, which go into great detail and depth, the latest concerning the predictable conflation between Customs Union (of the EU), The Single Market (including EEA) and variations on "Free Trade, Sovereignty and Supranationalism, " presumably when "the shit hits the fan" (illusion hits reality), and the parameters of Brexit as understood within the limits of Article 50. To provide an example, just read the beginning summary of news-media coverage of the politicians "positions" concerning the "progress" of Brexit in the above "Brexit: Confusion reigns":-

David Jones, Minister of State for Brexit, has told a House of Lords committee the UK's negotiating position may not be "totally crystallised" by next spring. The government was "at an early stage of the process", he said, and thinking was "developing".

But then, if this recent report in the Guardian (and a parallel report in the Mail) is any guide, this should not come as a surprise. The debate seems to be going backwards, sowing confusion in place of clarity, adding needless complications to an already complex issue.

For a start, these two newspapers don't seem to know whether they are coming or going. Both apparently report on work submitted to the Cabinet by the Treasury, the think-tank NIESR, and the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, but both seem to have a different idea of what it involves.

The Mail, on the one hand, has the work focusing on "a Norway-style model where the UK exits the single market but stays inside the customs union", whereas the Guardian has it that we remain "inside the single market but outside the customs union".

The Guardian then confuses the issue still further by suggesting that a customs union sets common external tariffs – which is fair enough – but then, bizarrely, asserts it "does not require customs checks".

If you read Pete North's blog, I think he lays out a useful basis as to why, that is actually very useful before then using the language of established conventions in our politics and hence the confusion that usually engenders. And if you accept some of the suppositions, it might then make more sense why for example Westminster politics deals and trades in so much that defies reason, that breaks the rules of reason - and yet ends up holding a most perverse logic of it's own! What is that? I think one way to perhaps describe it, and not exclusively, is to compare it to what M.C Escher does with his depictions of "rule-breaking geometry": There is order in understanding which rules are being broken and only displaying the consequence of those broken rules: Of course such an 'echo or reversal' thus holds onto it's inherited "reason" but in a most convoluted and captivating and strange and bizarre outcome: Much like watching politics in Westminster: The centralization of power at work, even? Why if we begin to assume we glimpse some of "how"?

 M.C. Escher: "Waterfall" - Our modern politics: But does such a picture serve a purposeful function for present people? "Almost certainly".

This is perhaps a fantastical way of suggesting: Perhaps people need to start learning more about possible rules of power itself, if we want to progress our politics and it's productive work as opposed to it's "distraction activity" usage which consumes the former; the greater the disconnect between those in power and those not, that also seems to be some sort of rule operating? That's an enigma. But for the moment, it seems to me to be more pleasing to view these illustrations than it is to listen to the illusions of politicians (passport colours a lazy eg, a more appropriate one: Scotland in the Single Market, rUK out – what would it take? - a strong exercise in catering to current illusions from a "think tank" etc).

Reports From Rebuilding: The Harrogate Agenda (THA)

The Harrogate Agenda: "Continuing the work..."

Page 1 of The Harrogate Agenda: "Demands for governance by the people for the people":-

"The original aim of the Chartists was to reform the political system to make it more democratic. And, although five of their six demands were eventually conceded, their work was not done. The system, although improved, is still very far from democratic. Thus we seek to continue their work, with another six demands, which we intend to be the focus of a new political movement."

On 1st October, 2016, I attended a meeting for The Harrogate Agenda. To choose one single subject to define the heart of the meeting: Power. There was some very deliberate and defined discussion at one point in the meeting concerning Demand 4: The Peoples Consent with respect to the mechanics of power. On the one side you have The Peoples Consent requirement to legislation proposed by Parliament and on the other hand you have Parliament's Consent to legislation proposed by people, which sparked a number of questions: Who then holds true power if the "right of proposal" is curtailed"? Or how is power truly restrained? There's more on this (see the website link above) on Page 14-.

This example is at the heart of the movement mentioned here and in the above passage all within the ambit of Power:-

• Reform
• More democratic
• Continue their work
• Six Demands
• new political movement

It seems to me that The Chartists helped build some of the foundations of democracy, but the work is incomplete. And to complete this work or continue it, I think what is required is "people with skills" in political processes. The ability to develop these skills and educate more people with these skills, is I think the essence of real power in politics.

Much is made today, for example today's Daily Politics, just the latest example of types of power:-

• Money (eg funding sources)
• Vote Count (eg MPs per party) - this one mentioned
• Communication (eg data mining)
• Prestige (eg social hierarchies)

The Harrogate Agenda - order from June Press

It's tempting to explore so much more and to elaborate on the ideas behind these basic ideas on power so much more, too. But to keep this report succinct: If we stop and consider that maybe our present politics really does revolve around such accepted notions of power as summarized above, then a consideration of where we are at with respect to political change as it exists today, may be in order:-

In times of transition or change, new problems arise. Not only are these new problems to solve, but old ways of viewing problems may themselves become problems too?

When you translate the above "viewing" into how the politicians "view" peoples current problems you end up with the type of "party speeches" that have been aired in the past few days, the usual fodder dolled out year on year:-

• 'Building a bigger, better, fairer more inclusive society'
• 'Those at the bottom neglected will be included again'
• 'We will regain control of immigration, housing, economy and...'

I don't even know, the monotone sound-bites filtered through the way politics is currently viewed according to the context of who has power and who is perceived to hold power. Apparently to then resolve/solve problems through that power that's filtered through the above channels.

Nowhere was this more in evidence than the Referendum on the EU. My assertion is this: The Leave Alliance affliation provided all the tools and much of the education for people to learn to skill themselves up for the Referendum, freely available: Power effectively was being given to people for free! What was potentially possible for people to acquire Real Power ie exercise Real Democracy was almost completely squandered and replaced by the vast majority of people cleaving to the above forms of power - in the hands of "The Few"!

Hence, in my opinion, at The Harrogate Agenda meeting, there was the feeling of being dwarfed by the scale of the problem: If this is such a good idea, why hasn't it already been done before, a "sanity check" style of question?

Interestingly, The Chartists already did attempt this, as stated before! And by the very means of perceived power of their time, too:-

"The strategy employed was to use the scale of support which these petitions and the accompanying mass meetings demonstrated to put pressure on politicians to concede manhood suffrage. Chartism thus relied on constitutional methods to secure its aims..."

What did they rely on that made them successful? I think if there is going to be any kind of success, for The Harrogate Agenda, then finding out what "this" is, will be essential; if it isn't already known? For more discussion on the challenges understanding this, Scribblings From Seaham provides further commentary:-

• Power and Control 
• Navigational Problems

Vote Leave: A Lesson In Power

 

Tywin teaches Joffrey a lesson in power

White Wednesday aka Roland Smith follows up another valid blog post: Idle musings: “The EU will do a deal with us”:-

"One of the biggest claims by the Leave side in this debate is that “the EU will have to do a deal with us” — a claim usually backed up by other statements such as: “we’re the fifth largest economy in the world; they’ll still want to sell us BMWs; German industrialists will be on to Mrs Merkel immediately;” and “they sell more to us than we to them.” Some Leavers also claim that precisely because our economy is so heavily aligned with the EU, we may even be able to do such a deal over a weekend."

If you remember, I pointed out that these people, in particular the politicians at the head of the Leave Campaign and especially the Vote Leave "lot" all seem to possess a similar "aura" of "talking sideways at subjects with full confidence"; as I tried to illustrate concerning the HM Treasury Report:-

What an impressive-looking pen.

First of all, to contribute to the careful analysis by White Wednesday:-

1. Haggling: This implies the problem is one of degree. It is not: Two different Rules Systems: EU Treaties vs Outside EU Treaties (Self-Governance).
2. Inferiority Complex: The foundation for this thinking is based on our politicians' obsession with projecting a "self-important" image onto the world of the UK or more accurately themselves to the British people upon upholding this "legendary status"; hence any "deal" must come with silver tassels and other special privileges befitting such "status anxiety". A lot of the self-deception in our politics and hence "bubble driven policy" seems to derive from this affliction.
3. Whining Tone: The actual communication comes across as asking for things that are not actually relevant, and hence any concession must be massaging fragile egos; namely token and gesture based: "Special Status" sounds all too snugly fitting... for such swaddling infants.
4. Dominance-Submissive Dynamic: The clip above from Game Of Thrones is worth considering; people projecting a kind of dominance or coercion is an unbalanced relationship, where I think actually all that is actually demanded is an EQUAL Relationship - by withdrawing orderly and in cooperation with the EU from EU Treaty Rules.
5. Rule-Based Argument: John Ashworth pointed this out, in his booklet: The Betray of Britain's Fishing To The European Union; the problem the UK has with the EU is not necessarily the EU: It's our own politicians, who either:-

• Did not Read the EU Treaty Rules correctly, or,
• Did read these EU Treaty Rules but deceived and continue to deceive the British Public over the consequences of these rules.

Interesting, it was posited that the "Inferiority Complex" that may have been one of the major inputs into Britain opting to join the EEC back in the 1960's is a latent force at work still today, resorting to cowardice and a complete lack of courage in our politicians to face the factual feedback and revert back into their bubbles... as White Wednesday I think is careful in pointing out in the above blog post.

There appears however to be some "good people" attempting to do just this and put the facts first, such as The Sceptic Isle:

We need to get the politics right. If we de-risk Brexit, it will have almost no ill-effects

"The two pivotal words of the EU referendum campaign are “could” and “how”.  Every analysis of the consequences of Britain leaving the European Union are heavily reliant on the word “could”, or similar words like “might”. We will hear it endlessly right up until the vote. Brexit could mean this and Brexit could cause that. What it entirely comes down to is how we leave the European Union.
This is essential to keep in mind when considering the IMF warning that an EU exit could cause severe damage. The warning said Brexit would ‘disrupt established trading relationships’, and ‘disrupt and reduce mutual trade and financial flows’. Such points of concern are of course based on the consequences of leaving the Single Market without having concluded a trading arrangement. The IMF warning is entirely contingent on the UK unilaterally withdrawing from the EU or failing to make arrangements for trade.
I’ve argued repeatedly that due the conclusions of a vast multitude of analyses the Government will look to adopt the existing EEA based model to protect the economy, facilitate negotiations and prevent disruption. What the IMF is referring to is a worst case scenario that neither the UK or the EU want or can afford politically or economically."

On one level it is all about risk if we use our "Left-Brain Thinking" adeptly. If we look at our "Right-Brain Thinking" complementary however, I'd argue that it's not merely risk, it's our "breaking through our own barriers" and putting aside this destructive force of "inferiority complex" that drives so much of our political (lack of) leadership and makes such cowards or "Donkeys Leading Lions" and the poor consequences that has a tendency to keep on leading towards?

What is something we can all agree on?

I'd suggest that we can all agree on what is written down in the rules that govern us. The Brexit Door produced an outstanding piece of work reflecting on this both for our own Democracy with reference to Tony Benn's famous five question and also with respect to how to message correctly in this campaign:-

EU Referendum – Your help is needed

Richard Corbett and Benn’s 5 Questions

One of the things you'll notice about King Joffrey/Vote Leave is the way in which both "grasp at things"; for all their self-styled indomitable shows of supreme confidence in themselves and their place in the world, if we look at Vote Leave to keep things on track:-

• Better Deal/Reform For Britain!
• The Public Demand Immigration Control of Borders for any Plan!
• Don't worry we don't need a plan, we'll sort it all out after we leave!
• The PM has done well under the circumstances lying to us all!
• We need a Great Leader such as BoJo to lead us to the promised land! All hail!
• Hannan, the breath-taking Orator of our times! Cummings the boy-wizard mastermind without a plan.

Anyone who has to say: "I am the King"...

This behaviour kind of reminds me of King Joffrey in the above clip: "Flipping out" reactions and edicts: It's delinquent and hence delusional. There's a short summary of Owen Paterson's Brilliant Brexit Patter by contrast:-

1. Paterson’s vision for a UK outside these uncertainties is one of a self-governing, free-trading nation, a true part of the global family, its international trade and participation no longer absorbed into the EU.
2. There is no status quo. If the UK remains in the EU, it will be a second-class citizen, and the EU’s political centralization will continue, dragging the UK along with it. The eurozone, politically integrated by 2025, will dominate the rest. 

And how?

"Leaving the EU is not an instant commitment, but a process. There would – and certainly should – be a long process of discussion before the formal commitment to withdraw (and the two-year i-dotting period that follows it) is given."

By redrawing and choosing to find new agreements on which rules we choose for ourselves and hence our future relationships with each other, hopefully for the better of all. God forbid we end up with more "King Joffrey"!

Qualitatively different arguments about Rules and Change In Rules and Rate of Change

Our own politicians as John Ashworth rightly observes, are the real problem even beyond the highly rational analysis that is readily available to anyone to help them come to their own conclusions in their own way.

Reluctant Remainders: Submission to Power

 Symbols of Power; Exercise of Submission

The above is in fact a photo of people bowing to their national figurehead in North Korea. In many respects there's nothing unusual nor necessarily bad about such practices. An equivalent for the UK is the various prestigious figures bowing to the Cenotaph in rememberance to the sacrifice of our soldiers lost in wars for the national cause and service. And many other nations or affiliations of various kinds follow similar practices of groups of people for various reasons. The One-Minute Silence seems to be ushered into groups of people at various entertainment functions, for example football matches, almost daily, at present.

However, I think there's a very important distinction: Is the personal choice to serve and believe in such service consciously made or is the exercise merely a tool of those in power to exercise people and groups of people to submit to their authority automatically or even by repeated exercising of submission to ensure their tendencies to submit are more powerful than their tendencies to act according to their personal convictions or their personal state of knowledge?

 The Cenotaph, at Whitehall in London for Rememberance

You may look at the above, knowing it is a scene from North Korea and feel and think along these lines:-

1. Identify from what you know that this is possibly a totalitarian display rather than a purely elective exercise of people.
2. Feel a sense of "relief" that such practices are "over there" and not "here".
3. Would empathise with the plight of these people and feel possible anger if you were forced to submit yourself to such a leader in your own nation, under such a display of society submission to the state. Would you bow to David Cameron, for example?
4. Your rationale as someone who lives in a democracy would be that the essence of democracy is that we have a free choice to elect our political leaders and any visible expectation against these "rights of citizens" would be such a trespassing against our core values and beliefs that we would be forced to realign such convictions with proactive political voting to correct such violations.

 EU Politics: Just Another Drop In The Bucket

A lot of people believe that the present Referendum on the EU is merely in-fighting between those who are conveniently labelled "Europhobes/eurosceptics" and those who are labelled "europhiles/Pro Europe". When the Referendum is contextualized this way, most people think this is the reserve of politicians or journalists or other commentators such as economists who have little better to do with their specialised job roles in society than to pick at such tiny distinctions and magnify their significance along with their own interests. What therefore does any of it have to really do with the ordinary person or the average voter? So long as they have jobs and schools and hospitals? Pete North Leaving the EU is only the beginning. Westminster doesn't work.

Each day a news story comes out with such examples. Yesterday: It was the Security of Britain being in or out of the EU, Dr. RAE North EU Referendum: on making mistakes; which seems already forgotten by most despite it being only days previously. Today it is the Disruption to Ireland if the UK leaves the EU, EU Referendum: border checks for Ireland?; either trade or peace process or whatever. And on and on this amnesia goes. Each is in fact like a drop into a bucket: Completely insignificant alone, but when you collect all these stories together en masse the pictures changes:-

Each drop, carefully collected and stored - ADDS UP - eventually.

This is a more accurate picture of the EU Referendum for the UK:-

REFERENDUM PROMISES

EUROPEAN UNION - INTEGRATION

THE EURO 

THE LISBON TREATY

What is the purpose of presenting these quotes? I think there's a good chance many so-called "swing-voters" will vote to Remain. Why will this significant (artefact) group category of people behave in this way?

First of all they will likely only hear the "drip-drip of decaying democracy" to inform their views as above, the exercise FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) and this will be heavily skewed without "Rememberance" but emphasizing Fear of Alternatives, which if it is argued honestly White Wednesday: What does ‘In’ look like?.

Secondly, some more informed amongst them will have targetted concerns such as:-

• We will lose our vote to influence laws made in the EU that will influence us anyway.
• Brexit will cause market uncertainty which is simply to practical a cost given we're members anyway. This will be negative to the UK for the future secondly be it the Pound and inflation or the decline of the City as a Finance center: "Our clout" will be diminished.
• There's no obvious benefit to leaving so why risk it?
• There's no clear argument for leaving.
• Trade deals will unravel.

 The 3rd category of "Reluctant Remainders" will vote for Cameron irrespective of his lies which is how he exercises power over people to submit and vote for him. They will choose Submission to Power over Service to their own Knowledge: Being true to themselves in words matching deeds. I expect this will apply more so to women, secondly, in thinking along these lines.

Thirdly, you will have a group who possibly may learn that these obvious problems are indeed problems but they can be overcome: Mr. Brexit What does 'out' look like? Cameron should ask the civil service. Here we move on from 1st Group = Fear. 2nd Group = Uncertainty to the final and most important 3rd Group = Doubt. The final stage of understanding of reluctant remainders and I am guessing the most profoundly challenging: They don't really believe in the EU, they know the EURO is not a good idea, they think the UK might even prosper out of the EU, but what is going to sway them to vote to Remain is:-

• Doubt: The EU and the other 27 Member Nations will not give us a deal that works because it will undermine them. We effectively don't have enough power to bargain, so any Brexit has a fundamental fault in it.

I've highlighted the key word in this final form of Remain vote inclination: Power.

You have two choices:-

1. Submit to Power
2. Serve your personal choice according to your knowledge and own feelings: Being true to yourself irrespective of fear, uncertainty or doubt.

If you want an evidence check against this, I can present you with one that connects this idea or contention with our present political reality:-

SUBMIT - TO - POWER

 SUBMIT - TO - POWER

Through all the above, it is a more sophisticated and layered approach to exercising people to SUBMIT TO POWER, not to learn and hence vote according to their personal freedom of choice: Pete North Brexit: what's in it for you?. If people behave as per the former, the results end up looking the same time and time again:-

You might wish or choose to deny it, but this is the behaviour of most voters in the UK today