Dance music is one choice, but listening to these speeches before an exercise session might just be another choice to give the old adrenaline a booster?
I listen and read and think about the current "currents" in the legacy news-media and beyond, in other deeper sources of information on the current triangle between the EU, Brexit and the Referendum Campaign. The former two are indeed scholastic or intellectual. I think the Referendum Campaign was nationally hyper-emotional, and it's no surprise there have been reports of mass hysteria. Interestingly, I was watching some of the World At War Series as well as some of the series on World War I. These events that imbued the EU with so much of it's spiritual "guidance" as a matter of fact: Booker: the EU dies where it was born. I may have not mentioned it before but I am a great admiring of Booker's "book": The Seven Basic Plots. Moving on: I think am right in saying get the feeling that during the 1930's Germany went through the various stages described so well by Booker: The Dream Stage and such deep tragedy, The Nightmare Stage subsequently. Booker has long used this tool of filtering events, and I think you can see in his latest piece it's correct application (once again) concerning describing the leadership of the EU's reactions currently? Probably without stretching the theme too far, there's a draining away of will power about the EU... maybe.
Anyway, one of the interesting descriptions of Hitler's rise to power was his own powerbase was built on multiples of fractious groups only united behind a common cause or leadership on a very thin surface of support, perhaps a leadership with a great deal of "will power"? If you watch the clip (it seems slightly doctored to enhance the effect of his "hypnotic speeches" and the religious fervour they worked up in crowds of people) I think it's fairly evident that this is the effective message and promise Hitler offered Germany at this time? And the preceding details that created such an environment I think are easy to understand just how conducive they were to transforming the emotional state of Germany towards such a leadership outcome? It was all building all along.
As said, I listen, watch and read and think about the current situation and it's infernally complex and chaotic. There was a very interesting example of some of the emotions tumbling around about Brexit and the EU linked at EUReferendum.com in the comments:-
I'm not entirely sure how much of the above is a combination of emotional processing, pedestal pitching of emotions and other incontinent reactions. But there's some useful insights into how people are genuinely feeling and reacting to the dissonance of a result that is going to be difficult for them to apprehend given the build up of anticipation, expectation and the subsequent dissipation and negatively in this case. There's plenty of this sort of material all over the place. It also incidentally has it's corollary in the Leave supporters. What's tell-tale and this is repeated a lot:-
WHO?
HATE
FASCIST
Apart from the hilarious, unintentional joke about "I thought that would be America..." (!!). Most people are basing their reactions on the other side. For them the symbol of this other side (from the Remain perspective) is Haters which when given a political colour scheme becomes "Fascists!". We come full circle back to Hitler. And I think the myth begins here. The myth has taken over the reality (see: The Many Not The Few for a another (very different but still "Myth supplanting"). It's become a story about symbolizing "hate" taking control.
I think it's not this actually. It's much more accurate to consider it as a case of a beaten people in difficult conditions with all the usual fractious divides amongst so many people at such numbers, finding a political structure which pooled them together under the aegis of "Will Power".
If looking at the subject of the EU, there is The Great Deception. On Brexit there is FLEXCIT. But when it comes down to the Referendum Campaign there is none of this intellectual dimension. There's emotion and vying for groups and the politicians promising that "Will Power" will resolve all problems if only it is "lent" to them in sufficient number. And likewise, post-Brexit The Leave groups are all pomp and fanfare and prestige and crowing that Will Power is all that is needed for a successful Brexit. Coincidentally I believe this integrates into what Dr. North has suggested supplants careful reasoning: Brexit: the failure of feedback. When people are swept up in the tide of emotions outpouring from so many different groups, then the solution is will-power and any problems are grossly de-emphasized.
It's not just the UK, but the EU uses Solidarity which incidentally the Nazis also used of course. It's not that either political entity is "hateful" it's that they're both under the same pressures and stresses pulling in different directions in multiple ways, it seems to me. Inevitably the solution is always:-
"More solidarity/sovereignty, more EU/UK (or folk-strength), more will power!!!"
Could almost be a Hitler speech, eh?
I really want to get back to reading about Agriculture, Fisheries and the Environment, I've been collecting various bits of information. Considering all the above, there's so many different ways of talking about it, it ends up being the case that simply remaining silent is the best reaction, because it captures all the above without neglecting too much of it by zealously selecting only a small drop of this ocean of outpourings.
If there were more people more silently listening and considering more and then asking sensible questions about ordinary things some more, maybe the actual process of Brexit in light of understanding the EU (and it's deep origins back in history) might become a bit more apparent and a bit more of a priority, first?
In George Orwell's 1984, the character Winston Smith comes to the conclusion that in his totalitarian society, the freedom to say the above mathematical truth without negative political repercussion is the genesis for all subsequent political change. It's a statement that is independent of personal subjectivity; an objective truth of the world around us and indeed the exercise of realizing this allows us to realize that we exist in a world separate than ourselves and this is also true for other people. The other type of relationships which also form another equally important environment as well as this physical "reality" is our Social environment or relationships with each other.
Objective Reality: Pythagoras' Theorem: The Square of the Hypoteneuse
Various "Group Cohesion" rituals (submission to the dominance of the group) are based on suppressing the tendency in individuals to promote the ego's agenda, our survival instinct as per our "will to survive" and our desire to benefit ourselves and also our kin. A major feature of this system is Social Status in dictating the TYPE of interaction between individuals which is conducive to avoiding the clash of individuals' egos leading to physical violence with one another. Such interactions invariably can be boiled down to Dominance-Submission in Social Status Interactions and attempts at interchanges between these social roles.
Ricky Gervais: The Office - A comedy of social status & real world role-playing of dominance interchanges
Perhaps Ricky Gervais' The Office is an instrumental example of the comedy involved in this pervasive form of human interaction? I often found the office environment especially dull in the type of predictable communication that takes place between different people role-playing and attempting to continually out-rank each other. Looking at this from a research point of view Uniforms: A Certificate of Legitimacy, we can see that people "comply" very strongly to the symbols of authority:-
University of Warwick Study: Compliance to Roles of Authority
Reading recently King Arthur: The True Story, it reminded me of J.R.R Tolkien's theory about some stories that act like an allegorical "Soup" from Leaf And Tree. There is a basic stock to the story from which different people at different times throughout history add their ingredients or "lumps" into the soup that becomes the story we know of today. Such narratives for example ancestor worship which beget some of the "stock foundations of modern religions" which invariably across the world all add this to other parts of the "stock" such as Creation Myth Stories. For example the stories of Abraham are full of geneological tracings back to "direct relationships" with God ("Good").
In the story of King Arthur, one of the later lumps thrown into the story adding to the base stock was it seems an attempt by the Norman nobility to propaganda the story with their direct links to this historic and mythic King of Britain so as to encourage greater links to legitimacy of their right to rule the Ango-Saxons via bypassing them to a Celtic/Roman prior claim to such a title! Of course much of this also carries on the back of persuading the people of a common shared system of values often assumed in the doctrine of Divine Right of Kings, but no less a major component of Legitimacy:-
"Legitimacy is a ‘…a psychological property of an authority, institution,
or social arrangement that leads those connected to it to believe that
it is appropriate, proper, and just’. Thus viewed,
legitimacy is the belief that the law and agents of the law are rightful
holders of authority; that they have the right to dictate appropriate
behaviour and are entitled to be obeyed; and that laws should be obeyed
simply because that is the right thing to do."
(Although the legend/myth/history of King Arthur points to an deeper level of legitimacy than merely the literal imposition of "divine right"). A more historic though equally dramatized story by William Shakespeare is Richard III.
Fact or fiction: the Machiavellian rise to power& short reign of Richard III
Interestingly Richard III is particularly depicted with villainous attributes by William Shakeaspeare, and as last of the Plantagenets before the Tudor succession of "Royal legitimacy" began, perhaps William Shakespeare was currying favour with the powers of the day in order to successfully hold his plays and be well received publicly and politically via such propaganda easing the thorny issues of legitimacy? Such seems likely when a fuller more historic picture is produced such as from The Richard III Society - A Brief Biography and Introduction to Richard's Reputation it seems a significant misattrubution of Richard III's character has been achieved by Shakeaspeare directly related to the issue of legitimacy and the new authority of the new King.
This theme of the interchange between Authority and Legitimacy appears to arise in another form in Dr. RAE North's The Many And The Few book. What appears to have been necessary propaganda during World War II's The Blitz and Battle Of Britain by the RAF to encourage people (bombing reporting changed, emphasis on the bravery of the RAF) what subsequently has been discounted is the efforts of so MANY people.
Necessary propaganda for it's time, but now national narrative that undermines The Many?
And this is directly relevant to today: We are governed by a few over the many. Fitting this into a general schema:-
Governance Type 1: One-Many: Divine / Metaphysical Legitimacy and hence Authority (Islamic Civilization)
Governance Type 2: Few-Many: The "Capable" Few Legitimacy and hence Authority (Western Civilization)
Governance Type 3: Many-Many: Real Democracy Many Legitimacy and hence Authority (Globalization)
I think one of the dangers to progression of the above, is mixing the problems of one civilization to another in the role of governance and hence legitimacy and authority as per Roger Scruton in The Road To The European Union. For many people the recent tragedy and terrorism in Paris will be to ask questions about Islamists/extremists. I think if you look at the above schema you see that Governance Type 1 as per Richard III for another example leads to a more violent world however that manifests, the rise in violence is the result. The statistics as per Samuel Huntington in The Clash Of Civilizations tends to back this up if you re-classify via the above schema where the One may be a legal or national government and the many may be multiple tribal communities/factions all under one nominal rule for example divine rule but practically fractious: Authority cannot be derived from tenuous legitimacy alone, and hence violence and los of political freedom invariably arises from Dominance via power and conflict.
Legitimacy Theory: Cognitive, Moral and EXTERNAL Pragmatic underpinnings
In the Western Civilization, by contrast, the notion of divine rule has passed, it is too subjective a relationship: The basis of nations has shifted emphasis of power from family or tribal units towards individuals (citizens) and the state/nation. The overhead of group cohesion of tribal units is less and hence the secularization of politics from religion and perhaps the trend of less violence in the world that Stephen Pinker describes in The Better Angels of Our Nature correlates positively with as per Democratic Peace Theory or as per Amartya Sen:-
''No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy,'' [This, he explained, is because democratic governments] ''have to win
elections and face public criticism, and have strong incentive to
undertake measures to avert famines and other catastrophes.''
National symbols and democratic electoral voting systems now provide legitimacy of rule of law and authority of government in the exectutive and legislative functions of governance of the people. I remember reading a report from one of the Global Bodies such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP):-
Development Index Map from 2010
You can see above a general pattern: Type 2 Governance appears to lead to higher measures on the multiple indexes of development of societies across multiple data sets. If we look at the tragedy of Paris this week, we can at least take solace and comfort in perceiving these two very broad and very general patterns between the two types and KNOW we are progressive and such actors of terror are regressive and they are merely pawns of greater trends of violence due to out-moded and pragmatically poor results of governance.
However, there's a cautionary tale: We don't appear to as yet hold a vision of current trend that is possible towards Type 3 Governance (Many-Many) which it seems is "container" tag or description of use connecting the process of Globalization and interconnectivity between nations and the effect of this on our Type 2 Governance such as the UK's "Representative Democracy".
An example of the politician projecting dominance and hence not listening
"UPDATE: I challenged Bannerman
on these points. His response was repeated obfuscation with totally
irrelevant points, followed by blocking me. I suspect he just doesn't
understand the point at all. These people are not up to the job of
running the leave campaign."
This may not be the best example, as twitter is notoriously shallow for communication, but I tend to see the dominance behaviour in many such as DCB, Daniel Hannan, Ruth Lea, Dominic Cummings and of course in David Cameron. Apparently Arron Banks also does this: Most people do: But do they also allow themselves to listen? Our government has had 43 years to use their capacity to understand and educate this understanding to people in the UK: They have not listened and have concerned themselves with the apearance of legitimacy only as per previous blogs: Argumentum Ad Infinitum or Pattern Recognition or Our Government: No ifs, buts or maybes.
What our government has done is effectively take 43 years worth of membership and cram all of that, all the undemocratic major Treaties (x7) into the voting public making a single day's choice x1 on the upcoming EU Referendum day.
That is the most damning illegitimacy of our government: The Few-Many Relationship In Action.
One of the problems of the Type 2 Governance that does not seem to appeal to Type 1 is the loss of "Moral Authority" as per the concept diagram above. Equally what WE must concentrate on is the quality of the "Cognitive Legitimacy" of our Government in this system and it's relationship to Pragmatic Legitimacy of execution of policy. Our politicians appear to hold very very low Moral Legitimacy, they are characters similar to the schemers we enjoy watching on our televisions such as Game Of Thrones: Chaos is a Ladder. In previous blog posts the lies over the EU by David Cameron remove all or any moral authority he ever purported to hold. Eating a hot-dog or drinking a beer with another world leader are all "mummer's farce" designed to make him appear to be "one of the people by the people for the people": He excuses his privileged position of Eton and Oxford and mentoring for Number 10 Downing Street but is yet another Prime Minister from such an "aristocratic" background.
We have detailed The Great Deception of our Government and David Cameron over the EU as well as the failures of our Government to promote prosperity, namely they lack Pragmatic Legitimacy too which must be down to a lack of Cognitive Legitimacy. Peter Hitchens makes the point that democratic legitimacy, the system itself is a set-up for such people:
Peter Hitchens: Does our government have any right to rule us?
Dominance-Submissive Interaction In-Built into our politics = No Communication because there is no listening pressure; only dominance projection
"Direct election
would correct a manifest unfairness in our current arrangements, exemplified by
Prime Minister David Cameron who gained office by virtue of 33,973 votes in the
2010 general election. All those votes were cast in the constituency of Witney,
which boasted 78,220 electors. The rest of the nation was not allowed to vote
for the man. He may have been elected as an MP, but he was not elected as prime
minister through a general franchise.
Furthermore, when
Mr Cameron holds office on the back of 10,703,654 Conservative votes, from an
electorate of 45,844,691, his franchise represents only 36 percent of the votes
cast and less than a quarter (23
percent) of the overall electorate. In any election, the PM hardly ever reflects the choice of leader for the nation."
In George Orwell's 1984 quote:-
Type 1: "True": 2 + 2 = 4 ; 2 + 2 = 5
Type 2: True: 2 + 0 = 2 (Spin)=> True: 2 - 2 = 0
Type 3: True: 2 + 2 = 4 (Apparently only if governments are made up of the governed themselves... and hence listen to themselves)
In Type 1 Governance, there's a deep issue with even the political freedoms of the first assertion. In Type 2 Governance we assume that our Government at least may have some legitimacy but their lying and their ineffective Governance is merely "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.' ~ Churchill. However what's actually true, is that the Cognitive Legitimacy is related to the Pragmatic Legitimacy (eg ERM via Lawson/Howe, eg 2008 Financial Crisis via Brown as per Lakshmi: Goddess of Prosperity (2) ).
Looking at that above index, nations that score highly appear to be well ordered, organized and in general employ greater democracy such as Norway (strong grass-roots movements) and Switzerland (direct democracy). If we start with 2 + 2 = 4 a basic truth in our communication, and we avoid the dominance of politics by "The Few" aka The Establishment, then we may find that comunication is opened up and stronger Cognitive application to our national decision making is effected... this cannot be done in the EU by the way: Our dispute with the EU cannot be resolved
The British Model = Cameron = Our National Politics low quality = Not Listening
But first we have to understand Legitimacy and it's relationship to Dominance before our "leaders" start listening to "We The People". We have a plan FLEXCIT, and there are many other Brexit plans all inferior cognitively, but if your leaders are not listening then we have the illegitimate liar David Cameron and his warmongering, recession-inducing "leaders" leading us into a series of future unfortunate events: Strategy week: the politics of expectation
Listening & Legitimacy:I don't think either Leave.EU/Vote_Leave or BSE listen given they're made of the same people as Cameron and Osborne.
In my opinion the stronger triangulation for any voter to think about is this: Which "triangle" holds Greater Cognitive Legitimacy and consequently can also exhibit Morally Greater Legitimacy (attempting to work honestly and present results as they are)? Can we suppose that those two combined will yield Greater Pragmatic Legitimacy, too?
A simple admission: I've never had any interest in politics for almost all my life. I know I would be much, much happier and content sitting on a couch, stroking "Domino" the black and white rescue rabbit, perched on my lap; watching a good film or reading a well-written book. Some friends asked me with that puzzled look on their faces: "Why the sudden interest in politics?" And they were quick to point out last Christmas and New Year that "further discussion of politics is now banned."
One reason is perhaps because we can't help but simplify how we think about politics: We need our villains vs our heroes stories. This is where the News-Media generates a great deal of it's trade in my opinion:
Controversy generating to drive commercial sales via increasing the emotional pitch.
Personality Politics instead of Policy Detail.
Legacy Media reports discretely, isolated from wider context.
Source material is reported from Prestigious sources as opposed to analytically rigorous sources and research.
None of these would be surprising in the latest Hollywood Blockbuster Movie release. There would be an exciting premise, A-list actors, condensed scenes pumped full of instant significance and "poetic license" with reality to spin a good and gripping tale. Usually the audience would be gratified to see the "White-Cat Stroking Blofeld" meet rightful justice while "the good guys" once again save the world. Unfortunately in politics this is really poor both in entertainment and in political pedagogy. The News-Media seem to do neither well.
History however tends to point to different versions of stories and at much greater scale, too. Yet even in the writing of these stories the same tendency for the above tropes to replace the actual emphasis of the real events applies. For example only today in The Daily Telegraph, It’s not just the Few we must honour but the Many
Concerning the EU, such a complex and large subject this simplifying narrative-shaping tendency is a very poor fit. But I would argue it has resulted in as above, a preference when things get serious to close down debate, to switch to another subject with less concerning repercussions or indeed for discussion to become bogged down in arcane and boring details. For this reason the arguments of EU Membership have remained very static for most of the 40+ years of our membership.
Identifying the accurate historic record is an example of "beginning at the beginning" or as per scientific process, asking "What?" questions: "What is the EU?" In my opinion a very strong history of the EU is free to read online and once again with Christopher Booker's contribution: The Great Deception. In fact it's one of those rare books where the "title earns it's book" as opposed to over-exaggeration of most titles to appear eye-catching: This title sounds sensational, and yet the title is much less sensational than the actual full record researched by the authors.
The Legacy Media will continue to flood the news channels with their stories on the Uncertainty of the EU Referendum to Britain/UK for the next few years but from knowing such a history, then where we are with an EU Referendum on our
current membership, it is far from surprising. Many people will exclaim all sorts and forms of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) and confusion will prevail. But if you choose to know the history of the EU, then like Blofeld, stroking his white cat, in the face of the media maelstrom; you too can say:-
