Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Red Cliffs Of Dawlish
Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Monday, 30 May 2016

The Political Glass Bead Game: Delusional Decision-Making



The Glass Bead Game (German: Das Glasperlenspiel):-
"The Glass Bead Game is "a kind of synthesis of human learning" in which themes, such as a musical phrase or a philosophical thought, are stated. As the Game progresses, associations between the themes become deeper and more varied. Although the Glass Bead Game is described lucidly, the rules and mechanics are not explained in detail."
So often it is the case that people talk or make a statement or a combination of such to make an argument about the EU Referendum, European Union or Brexit and they may make or use accurate descriptions or inaccurate and empty memes. They may indeed be able to explain these and hence they may even argue in a lucid manner.

But if you want a metaphor which describes THEIR BEHAVIOUR as opposed to taking at face value their WORDS, then you can use the example or metaphor of The Glass Bead Game whereby the total structure of what is said is divorced from a connection to the researched and hence inferred reality of the subjects above of Referendum, European Union and Brexit.

Namely the argument is detached and takes on it's own rules detached from feedback from research from real life!

Most people play this "game" when they talk about politics without realizing it: Indeed they play it because this is what the politicians and the journalists play over and over and over in their communication to the extent it replaces "the real thing" by and large. They don't realize that their descriptions are the glass beads, that their explanations are the advancement of their beads according to the rules they think the game is played by which advances the arguments in some way. And yet what they don't realize is that these "beads" or arguments or as I've called them before are often empty memes or if not they merely tools in the hands of the politicians before they introduce the next seemingly random rule that can never be fully explained, only described as our Glass Bead Game is related above.

Before giving an example let's look at Delusion:-
  • certainty (held with absolute conviction)
  • incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
  • impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)
The Glass Bead Game as we call it for now, is characterized by the above delusional properties. A statement can be made with "absolute conviction" even if it's a lie or else an opinion but presented as authorative information. Incorrigibility is taken as a given, that others will never admit they are wrong or mistaken and hence any argument cannot "win" despite this format being the type that is repeated on television endlessly: The sparring opponents of "biff-bam" politics. And finally nothing can be falsified: Facts depend on how you interpret them.

Here we see the conditions of the Glass Bead Game where the explanations are never clear and indeed what we have is a mixture of descriptions of delusion combined with the absence of rules or arbitrary rules of the media conduit. What is noticeable is that so many people want to contribute their opinion but end up adding yet another new glass bead to this game.

But like the game of the story, it is a rarefied activity increasingly so, it is merely a kind of national emotional soup to which people through in their ideas and hence what becomes increasingly the case: Politicians subvert the rules of politics increasingly so to gain an advantage amongst themselves and indeed use the Glass Bead Game to obfuscate and exclude people contributing arguments: What they say is if it is common sense or not is immediately converted into this bizarre game that means absolutely nothing beyond appearances or propaganda, persuasion, spin and where it inevitably leads: Newspeak.

Let's reconstruct some of the last few moves in this Glass Bead Game during this EU Referendum and it might help us Perceive The Game for what it is and hence it might allow us to learn what is a fabrication of misinformation which interacting with our emotions becomes delusional that then feeds into the game more delusional "selective rules" and what might otherwise be progressive problem solving:-

Vote Leave/Establishment (Red is Blue Glass Beads):-
  • Have churned up everything in their denial of an exit plan: "A Deal As Good As If Not Better Than Switzerland" (Daniel Hannan's Glass Bead) ; An FTA similar to South Korea, Chile or Mexico (Numerous Vote Leave Politicians) ; A Canadian FTA with WTO Rules (Boris Johnson and Gove) etc
  • Saving Billions of Pounds of EU Payments, Bonfire of Redtape Regulations, Control of Our Borders Absolutely, The European Wide Free Trade Area involves everyone from Iceland to Ukraine to Turkey Why Not the UK?
  • £350 NHS + Immigration Control UKIP
UK Government/Establishment (Blue is Red is Yellow is Green etc Glass Beads):-
  • Countless Studies of Magic Money on the curse of Brexit to the economy under WCS that are left open by Vote Leave's own glass bead moves
  • The generation of David Cameron's absolute lie about Special Status and Political Union which is a heavy history of such Glass Beads from "It isn't happening" "Silent Treatment", "It is happening to others only", "It is happening but is positive", "It is happening but there's nothing we can do about it despite fighting vigorously against it!"
What's so interesting is the likes of some who take this game to be some form of superior and sophisticated exercise of human organization! The pundits pontificate on this sagely and utter their deliverances gravely! They don't have a fucking clue about the rules and that's the point: They gain their positions by appearing to be able to "divine" them more closely than people can!!

Here's a little conclusion: This activity is not the zenith at all, it's a barrier.

When there is block or barrier to innovation and invention and hence creativity which is the source of so much of our potential prosperity then it can be inferred that such a society if not progressing, may be closer towards declining? See our debt and deficit problems. See and observe the problems in the Eurozone.

The Political Delusional Activity that is so easy to observe in this Referendum Exhibition Glass Bead Game Match is the major result here. The problem with politics is that much of it cannot be perceived directly by people, and hence these layers and layers of obfuscation and Ivory Tower Selective forces lead to the observations described above:-




Saturday, 28 May 2016

Alternatives To Certainty: A Bird In The Hand.


 
 ...and another one (Bullfinches are invariably found in pairs) in the bush!


Yesterday, a male Bullfinch above flew into a window, and stunned itself. Fortunately, it appeared only stunned and needed about 40 minutes to recover before flying away to a nearby apple tree with normal, strong flight returned and alertness in it's behaviour, restored.

Before then, I had picked it up and gone outside and held it in my hand in the sunshine until it had fully "woken up" while it seemed to doze off, at the same time as hoping it was merely stunned and not otherwise seriously injured. Well, it was wonderful to see such a beautiful creature so close and more so that it seemed to make a full recovery and fly away again. The above youtube clip is remarkably similar to my own experience, above, though I did not stroke the bird, merely providing a perch for it, in my hand and for some time a seat as it sat down for a good while too while it closed it's eyes and tried to recover from the stun or shock of it's impact. I remained calm though inwardly feeling consternation for such a bird, one of my favourites, in fact.

So I decided with this thought on my mind of such a beautiful creature to connect the experience with the current topic I noticed on the EU; afterall there's such little inspiration to be had from the channels of communication that so poorly serve the people in how our politics is conducted:-

1. Caroline Lucas was talking about people overestimating how democratic Westminster is.
2. Richard Dawkins was cited as suggesting his own ignorance is (he's actually aware of) is too high for people to really vote on this issue in a direct democratic vote ie Referendum.
3. Following on the daily status quo that "Remain" is the safe option" compared to "Leave" which is the essence of David Cameron's argument.

What I will say about the above: There's a lot of different things going on in what these people say. To briefly explain the arguments:-

1. Caroline Lucas is right: Westminster itself is not very democratic, but the argument she's really making is that for her particular arguments they deserve special status that is even less democratic so that they can't be modified as easily by voters, namely why she supports as a Green the EU.
2. Dawkins is it seems aware enough to assess his own state of ignorance and notice the low quality arguments in the news-media. But he fails to understand that ironically the process of Direct Democracy on the Subject as opposed to the People who espouse (supposedly for a range of subjects) is a positive experience for electorates to feedback on "democracy in action" directly. He also fails to appreciate that this activity promotes a higher trend of increase of knowledge on the subject and more pressure on the low quality arguments polluted by inverting the processes of conclusions and results. Namely polling presumes people already hold conclusions without recourse to results, so it's a question of massaging the message to assume the appearance that appeals to those people!!
3. And hence Cameron's "Devil's Trick" is to blind people to the actual EU Question = "EU Membership" not Economics.

  • Description: Above I have described three people's arguments.
  • Explanation: I've explained roughly the arguments used.
  • Arguments: They each make some statements to form an argument to persuade others of some conclusion they desire or deem good.
This leads us to the question: How do we truly know the value of the above however? Well for that we'd need to deduct as much of the facts as possible. This is a complex process. So much so that:-
  1. The complexity has limits to simplification.
  2. The logistics of deducting and researching for oneself is necessarily highly involved and demanding and of course may be impractical for communication at a massive scale.
  3. Where we can simplify we can make progress. Where we can't we have to rely on alternatives instead of "validation" we rely on "probability".
Hence the old cautionary phrase:-



In fact, Vote Leave have done everything possible it seems to me to ensure people think that Brexit is "a risk, because chances are that you (pl.) could lose everything."

Once people believe the frame of the question is this, then what David Cameron says sounds like the right answer...

... but it's the right answer to the wrong question! As per Roland Smith: Read The Question!

So people can save themselves time if they think and say these things with under a month until the voting day:-

  • "I don't know enough how to vote."
  • "They're all as bad as each other anyway."
  • "It won't change anything anyway if I vote."
Let's look at Caroline Lucas' argument on our own Westminster Politicians:-
  • "No Loss of Sovereignty" [Not Happening Argument]
  • "There May Be Some Loss of Sovereignty but it's very little." [Happening but insignificant (and not applicable to the UK) Argument]
  • "There is Some Loss of Sovereignty but it's worth it." [Happening and Significant and Applicable to the UK) but Positive]
  • "Sovereignty is overrated and besides there's nothing we can do about it." [It's Happened already whether or not it's positive or negative and is now "normal" or "the way the world works" / status quo - there is no alternative.
On Richard Dawkins argument:-
  • We've missed a Referendum on the previous major treaties, the problem is not a Referendum, it's not enough Referendums on subjects that are smaller and more apprehensible and applicable as and when they are passed for motion for democratic legitimacy by the people.
  • We've been in the EEC/EU for over 40 yrs, a long enough time for people to educate more people, so the problem is not the impossibility of knowing, it's the methods or failure of democracy to do just that! See previous.
  • His very argument that the Referendum should be an exlusive argument is indeed the very reason why he and so many others feel so ignorance: Because it is an exclusive argument under the current systemic failings of our politics in the UK, that led the UK into the EEC in the first place!
On David Cameron's argument:-
  • People voting in the EU Referendum: The big con trick being asked of you is to apparently vote for either one set of Westminster Pro-EU politicians or an alternative set of Westminster Anti-EU politicians and both of their fallacious arguments come a distant second as if this is a General Election.
  • This "Devil's Trick" by Cameron and Vote Leave is setting up the "One Bird In The Hand" Inductive Thinking in people to vote Remain.
  • One bird in the hand may seem to be "probably" better than speculating on two in the bush. But in fact the Sovereignty of the People of the UK does not belong to either the EU or Westminster!
  • This is indeed the question that is being asked in the EU Referendum as Roland Smith correctly points out.
  • Knowing that is the question, the answer is simple. What is the best reason to vote to Leave the EU?
 
Success for me was seeing the Bullfinch fly away back into the bush and not in anyone's hand, thankfully!
























Wednesday, 25 May 2016

Confused? Don't Be: Consensus Now! Contrition Much Later.

I may have misread the artist's intention here, but this is the nearest I could find to illustrate the targeted emotion of "Contrition". (Incidentally an emotion that I think is displayed a great deal more successfully in Japanese Anime than in Western animation which seems closer to some version of "humble-brag" and hence inferior storytelling execution and design for the viewing by children).


In our arguments, on such a complex and large subject as EU Membership, we deal with subjects that are not a question of complete exactness. As such the details we input into our arguments are mostly not a question of completely verified facts or figures though constituent parts of those arguments should/must contain as many of these as possible or as few of their opposite as possible). And so it must follow that any conclusions from results that analysis adn research allows, cannot equally be completely validated.

This then brings us into the realms of political consensus to dictate our decisions we would take once democratic discussion has operated on the above.

However, there is still a sequence:-
  1. Identify The Problem
  2. Narrow Down The Solutions Possible
  3. Interpret The Consequential Outcomes
If you are at all familiar with EUReferendum.com for the past so many years, this is exactly I would say the work that has been (again I would say successfully) carried out there. Today's blog by Dr. RAE North, EU Referendum: the lack of a plan very much retrospects on that work (indirectly) point out because it has NOT being incorporated by either Aaron Banks or Dominic Cummings and hence why this is a mistake for the present Referendum campaign commandeered by Vote Leave:-
"But the alarming truth is that they probably can't. To win this referendum, we had to get in first and pre-empt the scare tactics, laying a solid base of reassurance. Thus, the moment Dominic Cummings, for no good reason, rejected the idea of an exit plan, the leave campaign's fate was probably sealed.

We might possibly have been able to claw back from this huge error if Arron Banks had been a man of his word, and backed Flexcit as he said he would. He would also have had to have been successful in seeking lead designation for the "leave" proposition. He was our last chance, and he failed.

For an excellent review of where we could have been, Andrew Stuttaford's article in National Review is the place to be, especially as he makes the point that we have been pursuing the idea of an exit plan for years, only to have been ignored for several and different reasons.

Asa Bennett helps by making it clear that Vote Leave's refusal to adopt and exit plan – any exit plan – was never personal. This was a function of the flawed logic and ignorance of Dominic Cummings, the progenitor of a failed strategy – and also the craven response of the people around Cummings who never had the courage to rein him in.

The result has been a train-wreck campaign."
Why did these people not use the work that had already been laid down? In their own pockets of supporters they decided variably that (2. Narrowing down the solutions possible) would lead to a loss of consensus amongst different groups: For Leave.EU/GO that meant the "anti-immigration" supporters. For Vote Leave that meant the Top Echelons of the "eurosceptic aristocracy" and their dysfunctional dynamic would not permit such.

So in this Consensus Activity without "2." we cannot break through the message to "3. Interpreting the Consequential Outcomes or indeed Conclusions" and hence "Uncertainty, Could & Consensus" and all pundits leaning on the findings of the Biggest Consensus" discernment possible from polls, from various groups of identities:-



It's not only the above who are famed for their prowess in lying. It's also groups of economists and their famed prowess for poor predictions:-

Economists deserve to be ignored

Brexit could add two years to austerity, IFS says

Brexiters’ insouciance is the privilege of the rich - Free FT piece

Only 27% of voters think Leave campaign "credible and trustworthy", down 10% in week.

The Treasury warns of a “do-it-yourself” recession after a Brexit vote

Leaving the European Union would be a “major mistake” that would cost Britain in both the short and the long term, almost 200 economists are warning today. In a letter to The Times, 171 academic and 25 non-academic economists say that Brexit would ...
Economic Brexit? Consensus/Computer says: "Inconceivable!"


Be that as it may, we do actually have certainty about something: EUReferendum.com predicted all this >2/3yrs ago and longer. In fact, EUReferendum.com is the source of "Problem Identification" it then follows with the most competent and rigorous analysis of the "Solutions Possible" and follows on with 3.

So let's come back to the orginal problem for this political Direct Democracy Referendum process:-
  1. We cannot be completely exact.
  2. This does not however preclude the principles of working towards verification of facts and figures into our arguments to the highest confidence degree (peer review is not the same as consensus through conviction of the largest group of people or the most socially elevated).
  3. Hence our conclusions if we are to make predictions are to be considered with the most confidence towards validating our course of action in the subsequent outcomes of Remain or Leave.
But this is just to point out the obvious. What is the fundamental problem here in the actual process of politics, as opposed to working methodology for our information usage?

Education.

The information I think is very solid from EUReferendum.com. However the big problem is education. In fact this Referendum in 2016 premature it may be, it will act as the emotional consensus trigger towards a subsequent national contrition that is the release from the phony arguments freeing up space and putting people into a frame of mind where they DEMAND to learn more as opposed to react over-excitedly and in thrall to the habitual channels of communication of politics (juvenile quality) and we can see more mature methods introduced subsequently.

 What Happened? The shock of Brazil fans... ""this isn't supposed to happen to Brazil's national, football team.""

I might go further and say this Referendum, the more the FUD, The Economic Uncertainty is pushed by the Remain and Establishment groups in their consensus building the more this prestages the subsequent step of Education and the conditions that are needed to make this more possible than the past 2 years have suggested it has not been.

The need of people to learn I think will only be triggered after experiencing this contrition on a suitably mass and national scale. I think this because individual sense of contrition is different from when a whole group of people suddenly experience that they were all hopeless wrong or self-deceived in their previous impervious conviction of being right (especially being right together in such "sound" company!). That anime face I hope attempts to convey this "(collective) Oh Shit!" feeling.



So far the politicians and economists are paving the way. On the one hand, the UK gaining 10 years advance on this process could have been wonderful. But "could" as Remain keep pointing out is no good basis for arguments and ensuring we improve the quality of arguments in our national decision-making.

And this comes back to the second part of this blog, the first being the quality of arguments, the second being the quality of the participants of arguments: Namely people have to learn to elevate their own quality through mistakes and experience of making mistakes: This Referendum is at least conducive on that second part if not on the first part. The politicians and economists are purely reflecting this - which gives people an opportunity to see and experience their own limitations in contributing to real democracy and thus the narrow form it takes (exclusion) consequentially, by those big groups of consensus builders who effectively displace the widening of arguments by more contributions by more people.

To use a flesh example, when Brazil were thoroughly thrashed by Germany:

"This match, however, ended in a shocking loss for Brazil; Germany led 5–0 at half time, with four goals scored in a span of six minutes, and subsequently brought the score up to 7–0 in the second half. Brazil scored a goal in the last minute, ending the match 7–1."

I was not surprised: They had looked like a weak team riding their status for too long in achieving results while Germany had spent years of hard work building their team for winning the World Cup in 2014 (I think ever since England thrashed them back in the early 2000's 5-1 or something (2001)!). But you can see the shock and dismay of the fans above. At least losing so badly may lead to asking questions more seriously and hence identifying the problems more successfully.

Sunday, 22 May 2016

Polls & Politics: A Finger Pointing To The Moon




 "I am a finger pointing to the moon. Don't look at me; look at the moon." ~ Gautama Buddha

Often when listening to some or other politics programme on the television, in particular Daily Politcs, Newsnight and Question Time from the BBC, I am very aware of a distinction:-

  • When talking about Political Policy (what?)
  • When talking about Political Personality (who?)
I consider most of the "who?" category to be secondary and "low quality information" and yet if I were to do a proportion measure on the above programmes and calculate the time spent between the two, it might be quite interesting to see how much time is spent on this "who?" and at the cost of "what?". Why is this? Indeed, do you agree or disagree that one is primary and two is secondary?!

You can easily make the connection between the quote above and this consideration of politically productive discussion vs (not always but mostly) empty discussion (in the main).

A big hint why this happens is actually provided recently by Pete North, in serendipitous fashion:-



I remember a lot of "stick" that Pete North has taken, perhaps he's just one of these unfortunate types who the very look and sound of, is enough to piss people off and rub them up the wrong way... perhaps there's multiple other reasons that a radio talkshow could spend a good afternoon gossiping about and still not zero in on the de facto reason. It does not matter, we're not talking about Pete North, and the irony of "the look of disapproval" to "emote" this flaw... but what is worth saying is that this particular blog content is one of the most important made concerning the campaign process for this referendum.

Let's take another example however where this principle operates in polling data which is also something the pundits relish talking about as much as if not it seems more so than the actual political policy:-

Sex/Gender:-



Age:-



Ethnicity:-



Political Party:-



Socio-Economic Group:-



Education:-



Religion:-


 How will all these data sets describe how people will vote in the EU Referendum? So much is made of this and yet so little is made of:-

Knowledge Self-Awareness "&" Appropriate Application "&&" Recognition in Others




The above graph is quite easy to appreciate. If you have been reading the past five blogs at EUReferendum.com then it is easy to appreciate the "green line" of "How much more I realise there is to know".

I think a lot of people rightly identify themselves as "Beginner": "I know nothing". However, they are unable to assess or fall for incorrect measures when the likes of:-

Actors/Celebrities:-



Authorative Business Leaders:-



Celebrity "Popular" Politicians:-



Prestigious Politicians:-



Foreign "powerful" dignataries:-



Intelligent Sounding Academics:-


Officious-Sounding "Impartial" Think Tanks:-



Provide their "Hazard" "I'm an expert" (of what?) opinions and what I think people generally have as "good intuitions" are confused by such appearances by the above as the above "trump" such beginner opinions "I know nothing".

I personally believe this all leads to the simple outcomes of "top trumps" or "Butting heads" replacing arguments with fractured and fragmented fallacies empty memes/headline factoids (Hazard!):-


Impressive forces! But I think such polical outcomes in people leave the combatants exhausted and frustrated: "They're all as bad as each other" observation.

These are the old argument forms that are increasingly visible and condensed given the Referendum is directly on the subject of the EU and much much less on the "who?" of tribal politics. Therefore even in this error of UK Gov (Cameron/Eton) vs UK Gov (Johnson/Eton) Remain vs Leave outcome, there has been a by-product we can make future use from.

And that's more concentrated and effective methods at looking at that moon in all it's heavenly splendour:-

EUReferendum.com:-

EU Referendum: why we must leave22/05/2016
EU Referendum: "pettifogging regulation"21/05/2016
EU Referendum: polluted by ignorance20/05/2016
EU Referendum: a matter of regulation19/05/2016

Wednesday, 18 May 2016

Operation Trust: "Jumping The Shark."



Vote Leave and Boris Johnson's invocation of Hitler moment: "Where the show 'jumped the shark' and the polls nose dived from the artificial "neck and neck".

The term "Operation Trust" refers to the setting up "a fake anti-Bolshevik resistance organization as a counterintelligence operation of the State Political Directorate (GPU) of the Soviet Union". In fact Vote Leave can only be a fake (not authentic) anti-EU resistance organization: It's derived from the same sources as the opposite side to the campaign Pro-EU supporters from Westminster (Outer Party). Traditional "euroscepticism" has served so well to contain information by usurping it with multiplications of misinformation distribution via the Legacy News-Media to effectively "swamp" intelligence at large on the nature of the EU project.

I'm sure it's almost impossible to separate "fact and fiction" towards this effective result for the EU Referendum, it's no matter. What is of interest is something entirely different. First a recap, in the first three blogs I wrote:-

1. How do you become eurosceptic? (learning)
2. I've been expecting you (FUD/propaganda)
3. The greatest problem of our time (democracy in action)

I more or less already laid down everything that this blog has attempted to convey and now's the time to "memory recall" that now that it is so apparent:-

1. Few people have really learnt during this referendum process.
2. FUD has been on a prodigiously high industrial scale.
3. Democracy has been assumed and controlled by the political class away from the people.

One of the most important messages for any Pro-Brexit (Brexiteer) or other campaign is that there's 2 types of people for simplification:-
  1. The people who believe there's essentially nothing wrong but some minor problems with respect to our politics and EU Membership.
  2. The people who believe there's essentially significant problems and that this leads to so much else being wrong with respect to the above again.
Of course the frame for this is the EU Membership. And the requirement is to develop the conviction in people of 2 if you come to the conclusion that Brexit is politically high magnitude but significantly important enough to warrant such a decision. I did not use "Operation Trust" to suggest a conspiracy theory but much more to work on the suggestion that intelligence is blocked from Top-Downwards in the current political system we inhabit. In fact the link with Operation Trust to a work of fiction by George Orwell lends the diagram from 1984:-

Tip: The Big Idea (actually the structure built off people), Top (Figureheads such as Cameron PM or Obama or Carney) Middle (Vote Leave, BSE and "eurosceptic aristocracy") Bottom: Ignorant people create the political system according to the level of ignorance en mass in combination with the Outer Party distraction.

Effectively BSE and Vote Leave fulfill the "Outer Party" role. The core of our political class such as David Cameron are current form of Prime Minister (along with previous forms: Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, John Major, Heath etc) form the Inner Party and are untouchable. Indeed Cameron is the core target in this referendum with his absurd degree of power to control the Referendum context and to deceive successfully to such high degree around it too, all of which have been explored but little distributed and in particular by those in Vote Leave (Outer Party).

And yet, ultimately the fundamental error, the idea or "Big Brother" itself is not a person but a systemic structure of our politics and the mass apathy and ignorance and acceptance of the "Proles" or people themselves. The idea of "Big Brother" or whatever you wish to call it, is built on this bottom condition which thus lends itself to the formation of this top condition with the tyranny of "One Big Idea" in this case (And not the only one): The EU. No matter, remove that and another "Big Idea" will take it's place soon enough given the base of people has not changed "shape".

However, this sort of possibility does indeed sound still in the realms of sci-fi as per 1984, only to be found in fiction. And yet let's look at the latest development in the EU Referendum from Vote Leave driving the "Proles" to distraction (only for the members of the "inner party" to come out with ever more sage and gravely kind advice saving us from ourselves by voting to keep the EU):-
All these blog posts from EUReferendum.com and in particular "opportunity cost" give rise to what has a useful name that perhaps many people are already so familiar with such a trend: "Jumping The Shark":-

Jumping the Shark is the moment when an established long-running series changes in a significant manner in an attempt to stay fresh. Ironically, that moment makes the viewers realize that the show's finally run out of ideas. It's reached its peak, it'll never be the same again, and from now on it's all downhill
"Jumping the shark" is an idiom popularized by Jon Hein that was used to describe the moment in the evolution of a television show when it begins a decline in quality, signalled by a particular scene, episode, or aspect of a show in which the writers use some type of gimmick in an attempt to keep viewers' interest, which is taken as a sign of desperation, and is seen by viewers to be the point at which the show strayed irretrievably from its original formula. The phrase is based on a scene from a fifth-season episode of the sitcom Happy Days when the character Fonzie jumps over a shark while on water-skis.
The usage of "jump the shark" has subsequently broadened beyond television, indicating the moment when a brand, design, franchise, or creative effort's evolution declines.
Probably a lot of people don't give a stuff about politics or think they don't, but you only have to look at just how &*%! crass that a particular scene is from Happy Days:-

EU Referendum 2016: Summed up perfectly in this total garbage attempt to manipulate audiences emotionally invested in this sitcom back in 1977!

Some day, people will look back at all the media information and and the hopelessly ignorant and gullible people and wonder how people could be so brain dead and so unquestioning and indeed tolerant or trusting of the garbage produced by our "opinion shapers and makers" of society such as the legacy news-media, surrounded as we are by oceans of information available at our fingertips within seconds?

I look at this clip above and all I see is cynism dripping off the screen filling buckets - pretty much like this whole EU Referendum political fraud enacted on the entire UK.

There's an argument that people on a side of the argument may not agree but must pull-together. No, this is wrong. Underlying the actual argument dictates what is of consequence.


Tuesday, 17 May 2016

Vote Leave Give Control



All the visible notions of the above campaign group it seems to me are intended towards, a continuation of the main political narrative of the UK Government and Establishment battling 'the big EU' over "the way the British do things with plucky spirit and much vim," in Britain but reluctantly accepting 'the coolly, rational case' for conceding some powers to a Supranational EU.

This has been a constant of the British Government since the early 1960's and Vote Leave it seems to me continue this two-faced role of the UK Government looking both to Brussels at the same time as talking a "different game" to the UK Electorate: Controlling THEM.
Brexit The Movie: More "plucky crap."


Some brief examples:-
  • Fake figures around the NHS
  • Johnson's appeal to Nazis/Hitler
  • Bonfire of Regulations
  • Sheer Confidence alone will conquer negotiations 
  • Waving the Immigration Stick for agitation effect
All the work of Vote Leave and also the perfect demonstration of "inferiors" in both:-
  • Authority
  • Competence
  • Comparison of sources of prestige 
And of course if you do agree with this minor jottings of the descriptions of Vote Leave and the effects they naturally lead to, just consider how much this is multiplied in error by both Remain (with puffed out chests) and by Leave (with little actual intelligence but tribal mores as bad as they claim Remain to suffer from).

Likewise on the Remain side we've had an endless parade of prestige:-
  • Barack Obama (President of the USA)
  • Jeremy Corbyn (Labour leader)
  • Mark Carney (Bank of England Governor)
  •  Christine Lagarde (Managing Director of the IMF)
  • David Cameron, Gordon Brown, John Major (past and present PMs)
I think taken TOGETHER, we see that Vote Leave is PLAYING TO THE PRESTIGE of the above perfectly, showing inferior behaviour in indirect methods. Whether or not it's intentional or not it is irrelevant, it's systemic both ways.

What I find remarkable is that for many people who don't feel confident about voting due to their information and knowledge levels, then they will tend towards resisting notions of:-
  • Take Then Give in preference to Give Then Take ("Give & Take"
My suggestion is this, Vote Leave is systemically designed to fail the Leave case for voting to leave the EU Referendum. They focus on taking not on leaving and in this taking world, firstly (1) they invite fantasy then (2) they ensure people feel as if "taking" (without feeling comfortable on the balance of the relationship) is perhaps a "rash" decision of violation against neighbours that may lead to wrongs and hence it feels safer to "keep the peace"...

What's been neglected is the case to build up that the EU is doing the TAKING:-



Boris Johnson generates more bubble politics/Babel-17 from citing Hitler instead of holding up this paper concerning the EU's future plans or indeed it's key proponents preferences for it's members.

From such a position, we should see that the UK has been a generous and benefactor nation to the EU since we joined in the early 1970's and has GIVEN a lot to the EU. But it's time for the UK to take a commanding role on the Single Market outside the Political Union and thereby give the world a boost to trade and positive global influence. Given the EU has chosen to take more powers, it's time for it to GIVE goodwill back to the UK if the UK chooses democratically to leave: Quoting Dr. RAE North at EUReferendum.com:-


"The oddest thing of all is that, in devising our original scenario, we adopted the line taken by the British negotiating team in its successful attempt to enter the European Community in 1972.

In his report on the negotiations, Con O'Neill wrote a very telling piece on how he came to define his strategy. "First", he said:

…almost every conceivable Community policy or rule or enactment is the resultant of a conflict of interests between the members, and has embedded in it features representing a compromise between these interests. Open it up at any point, and the whole laborious compromise will fall apart …

Second, as in all negotiations, exceptions are dangerous, for they create precedents. Admit a change in this or that case, just because British arguments are strong and you will find it hard to resist changes in other cases where the matter is vital. So the two facets of the Community's principle became embodied in one precept: "Swallow the lot, and swallow it now".
On this basis, the character of the negotiations became one of leaving "relatively minor" matters to be settled after the UK had joined the Community while, in order to expedite the negotiations, the governing precept became, "Swallow the lot …".

Given the two-year time limit and "sudden death" character of the Article 50 negotiations, which would determine the exit settlement for the UK, it seemed to me that the precept which had facilitated our entry could do equal services in assisting us to leave the EU.

My reasoning in this respect was entirely straightforward. It would be far better to gain an exit settlement which was less than optimal than to end up with the catastrophic outcome of leaving without an agreement.

Furthermore, and crucially, I took that view that, unless we were able to show that compromise was possible, we would never secure the confidence of the electorate, and their support in the referendum. In effect, we either convinced the electorate that we were prepared to compromise on our exit expectations, or we would lose the referendum.

Such insight, of course, stems to a very great part from the intensive labour, with Christopher Booker, in researching and writing The Great Deception. And you might have thought that this might afford us some authority when it came to defining the referendum strategy."


I think Dr. North's logic is sound. But as important I'd extend, the attitude is cooperative and the communication is simplified and hence: The problem of LEAVING the EU is above all else:

IDENTIFIED:-



Monday, 16 May 2016

The Darling Buds Of May

A tree in May: Life, light and colour: So much to see and so much to do outside.

I think perhaps for those that live in the UK Islands, this time of year, May, is a time of natural exuberance and one that our modern life schedules fails it seems to fully factor into with the change of the season. I remember one of my previous office jobs and watching some tree-surgeons tree-climbing and chopping back the branches of the trees away from the office buildings, outside. At this time of year I really enjoy being outside and indeed I've been doing just this for the past week: Working on renovating a property and it's land and working in the evenings managing a Summer sport. I've also managed to enjoy so much of the natural world from plants such as bluebells and somuch more to insects to myriad and highly visible and audible birds and finally to foxes and their cubs.

William Shakespeare's Sonnet 18 in particular the phrase:-
"The Darling Buds Of May" (darling or "to darl" either is as good as the other!)
 By William Shakespeare - http://luna.folger.edu/luna/servlet/s/by2g21, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47881412

Captures much of what I've barely tried to describe in observation above but with more mood and fewer words! In fact at this time of year I feel my behaviour is in need of significant alterations:-


Two Jackdaws collecting horse hair to use to line their nest with.

I'll definitely put out some collected horse hair next year along with any bird food, realizing the value to these animals of such a material at this time of year.

As such, the EU Referendum subject has felt more remote than it has been for me for a long time. That said, given the huge efforts made for The Leave Alliance Launch and FLEXCIT - The Movie filming, the ideas and content discussed at these meetings are very vivid and fresh in my mind while I'm about other things. In fact so much so, what amounts to "news" in the Legacy News-Media feels like an anthropological documentary of some kind where the strange and bizarre customs of the natives is observed in bafflement but nonetheless recorded for science...

It's mainly the ever more perverse behaviour of our politicians as they go about their roles in the same way as if the Referendum were no different to any general election and they can come out with their lies and low quality arguments and hence low value to our society. There's plently of discussion on this and observation and description of it by "The Blogger's Army" in support of The Leave Alliance:-

Pete North
M.E. Synon 
EUReferendum.com
Leave Alliance
Independent Britain
White Wednedsay
Scribblings From Seaham
EU Question
Semi-Partisan Politics
The Brexit Door
The Sceptic Isle
I still manage when not able to blog and develop ideas on the EU Referendum to read most if not all of the above sources. In fact, looking at the fact there's a small but steadily emerging movement, despite the risible politics of the UK made even more visible in this EU Referendum:-


The burnt remains of the Establishment controlling both "Remain" and "Leave" sides of the EU Referendum

Wednesday, 11 May 2016

EU History: Destructive Emotions & Creative Thinking

Fire and Ice ~ By Robert Frost

"Some say the world will end in fire,

Some say in ice.

From what I’ve tasted of desire

I hold with those who favour fire.

But if it had to perish twice,

I think I know enough of hate

To say that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice." 

The above poem is not only a nice poem but as with good poems it condenses the core elements of the content as much as possible, in this case the musings on "destructive emotions that shape the consequential external destruction invoked". In this spirit, it's also referred to by George R.R. Martin in his series of fantasy epic: A Song Of Fire And Ice and acts as the complete canvas to all the micro and macro dramas in that "tapestry"; involving multiple warring factions which itself is loosely based in historic events of The War Of The Roses (and other such conflicts fictional or historic):-

Attribution: By Richard Burchett (1815–75)[1] - File:Richard Burchett - Sanctuary (1867).jpg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12626198

"The Wars of the Roses was a series of wars for control of the throne of England. They were fought between supporters of two rival branches of the royal House of Plantagenet, the Houses of Lancaster and York. They were fought in several sporadic episodes between 1455 and 1487, although there was related fighting before and after this period. The conflict resulted from social and financial troubles that followed the Hundred Years' War, combined with the mental infirmity and weak rule of Henry VI, which revived interest in Richard, Duke of York's claim to the throne."

Here was a war for control of the Throne of England. Subsequently power itself was fought over in The English Civil War:-

Attribution: By Unknown - Encyclopædia Britannica online, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8631860
"The English Civil War (1642–1651) was a series of armed conflicts and political machinations between Parliamentarians ("Roundheads") and Royalists ("Cavaliers") over, principally, the manner of its government. The first (1642–46) and second (1648–49) wars pitted the supporters of King Charles I against the supporters of the Long Parliament, while the third (1649–51) saw fighting between supporters of King Charles II and supporters of the Rump Parliament. The war ended with the Parliamentarian victory at the Battle of Worcester on 3 September 1651."
Here was a conflict between two factions: The Throne and the emerging power of Parliament itself.

Before moving onto the third and final "conflict" in this series on "Conflicts of Power by Internal Forces" centred on Political Power in our history, we need to take a view of another history neighbouring, a "Conflict of Power Amongst External Forces": Two relatively recent blog posts on this subject by Dr. RAE North at EUReferendum.com and in connection with the recent Introduction by Christopher Booker to FLEXCIT: The Movie:-



 


They are, how to express how essential these two summaries from The Great Deception, essential to understanding the genesis of forces acting on the Remain side of the question in the upcoming EU Referendum Question and as I asserted in the previous blog, any derivative motivations and intentions of the modern descendants or inheritors of this strand of feeling and thinking in how to "manage power":-
"What was especially interesting, though, is that Juncker and Cameron are pictured visiting a First World War cemetery on the Somme, despite the official hagiography of the EU firmly rooting its genesis in the post-WWII period.

In fact, the First World War was far more important to the intellectual genesis of the EU than the Second, something that Booker and I observed in The Great Deception (see p.14 et seq).

So vital is it that we start Chapter One with an account of how, on 22 September 1984, two portly middle-aged men stood holding hands in front of the largest pile of human bones in Europe. One was the President of France, François Mitterrand; the other the Chancellor of Germany, Helmut Kohl.

The reason why the two most powerful political leaders in western Europe were staging an act of reconciliation before tens of thousands of graves was that the site of this ceremony was the ossuary at Douaumont, just outside Verdun in eastern France.

And if there was one historical event which more than any other inspired what was eventually to become the European Union, it was the battle which had raged around Verdun the First World War. For the British the defining battle of that war was the Somme in the summer of 1916."
The Great Deception (2nd Edition Link)



And again in the subsequent blog but with a view not to the past (World War I) but to the future (World War III):-

"With Mr Cameron claiming on this of all days, "Europe Day", that leaving the EU would bring us closer to war, all he is actually doing is repeating the most insidious myth of them all in relation to the European Union - that this monstrous construct has helped keep the peace.

The myth finds is purest form in the EU hagiography, where the European Commission's asserts that "probably very few people in Europe know that on 9 May 1950 the first move was made towards the creation of what is now known as the European Union".

Crucially, it would have us believe that this was an attempt at preventing a Third World War, but completely omits to tell us that the intellectual genesis lies not in the post-WWII period but in the 1920s, devised is response to the problems arising out of the First World War.

For the myth-makers, though, the origin of the EU was Paris on 9 May 1950. Against the background of the threat of a Third World War engulfing the whole of Europe, the then French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman (pictured above, right, with Jean Monnet) read to the international press a declaration calling France, Germany and other European countries to pool their coal and steel production as "the first concrete foundation of a European federation". 
This was what was on offer was the creation of a supranational European Institution, charged with the management of the coal and steel industry, the very sector which was, at that time, the basis of all military power. The countries which Schuman called upon had almost destroyed each other "in a dreadful conflict which had left after it a sense of material and moral desolation". Thus, concludes the European Commission in its own history, "Everything... began that day".

Needless to say, the reality is very different. Far from the heroic Schuman standing at the centre of the "project", he turns out to be little more than an unwitting stooge, manipulated by one man who had made its his life's work to set up a "government for Europe"."
That man was Jean Monnet.

FLEXCIT THE MOVIE Intro by Christopher Booker. ~ Linking both sides of the argument and pointing out the difference between quality arguments and "destructive low quality emotions" that dominate the Referendum today.

What we see is that the widely held belief about the EU is itself a Myth taking the form of a "Creation Story" and that story is not factually/historically accurate, even if it's hyper-emotional. Far from seeing the genesis of obsolescence alone, we see the seeds of destructive emotion where perhaps "we least expect it" and indeed the European Union does not appear to have developed as perhaps so many in power set the peoples' expectations for it towards, only 10 or 15 years ago?

The "Creation Story" is very important, to forging an "origin of legitimacy for political union and power". Ultimately (that means eventually on this preset course!) however this requires a formation of an established "Demos" of some form as acknowledged perhaps under International Law? Indeed much of this is the thinking behind those who still support the further Political Union of the EU:-


So you see, the assertion in the previous blog for both sides of the argument, despite my personal support of one over the other, I think is still highly applicable, irrespective of my own opinions, the arguments themselves must be asserted.

And here is indeed where and why I part ways with the EU Remain side: Those destructive emotions we see in our histories and in our stories ultimately find their most potent form when the consolidate and centralized around power instead of dispersing or controlling that power or "kratos" as per The Harrogate Agenda:-



To be clear I'm not pitting the forces of "Good" on one side vs the forces of "Evil" on the other side. For some European Nations the EU may indeed under The Fundamental Law above be a very necessary next step for many possible reasons.

However, coming back to the UK, and those historic "Internal Conflicts" over the source and control of political power:-
  • The War Of The Roses (Throne vs Throne)
  • The English Civil War (Throne vs Parliament)
  • EU Referendum (Parliament vs People)
In my view, the modern equivalent of those previous power conflicts is fortunately not a battle involving either guns or steel but ideas as is possible when democracy establishes itself in a nation and the idea of war recedes as a destructive way to resolve problems rather than the creative solutions people can generate through argumentation and analysis and communication tools:-

If we take another model of understanding and apply it to this posited idea:-




What we see is that the basic necessities of life are much to are "First World Problems" chagrin catered for and we run up against another layer of problems. In fact "Safety" is a basic expectation of our own government and social contract with the state. But it is a basic "need" and one that I'm sure the UK is predominantly in control of. Yet the government failing at delivering "higher needs" inevitably overplay's it's hand concerning how valuable it is and indeed how valuable the EU is, doubly so given it's own "Creation Story" in this area. And so so much of the debate is bogged down via lower quality arguments and lower order needs without a positive argument that reaches towards more productive and creative and growth generating solutions:-
What we see from FLEXCIT is those higher order forms of actualization and self-expression by people:-




I'd finish this overview of history and the "Remain" side of the question, by suggesting for the UK, clinging to "security and safety" is the least or minimum of our aspirations for progress. And driving that "expectation setting" is our own Parliament and politicians who in my opinion more than anyone appear to be holding back the UK's ability at creative thinking to solve our modern and very global problems.




Tuesday, 10 May 2016

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.