Accepting that everyone is a Bully? Power & Sacrifice

The chances are that you are and arent looking properly:

Inaction is joining in, as you are accepting the rewards.  In that you are passively allowing yourself to be associated with the group that is not being bullied, & being distanced from the bullied ‘group/’ which is certainly complicit from their direction on their newly constructed island.

Why does a group need to Bully?

When they feel stressed/pressured/in danger/scared & have no connection.

A group with no reason or common relationship for being is unsettling/scary as we need to specify a groups constraints & relationship.

Creating a nearly identical group with a label seems to solve the problem well, as it is almost the same size too.

The scared may spot a member that doesnt match the others so closely, ie stands apart, and they arent so scared of in this situation.

By not being them, everyone has somthing in common, and their group has a definition, and so, they relax, by thrwing one under the bus.

We learn how to blend in early on, because to stand out most often ends up in being sacrificed to strengthen a group.

Sacrifice! The ultimate Bullying!

The preist is okay if they control it, and safe, and similar with say, the inquisition in a way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Its us that didnt vote Brexit & Trump who may be deluded???

 

We are in an incredibly difficult situation to surmount!!

You see, say an unpleasant ex-murderer who killed an employee of his investing company, for not making large enough profits, goes for election against a vanilla politician, and the world watch. We find we don’t like him.
But its us who can and will be critical. The voters have to decide more from a perspective of what is best for the country, weighing up all factors, but weighting them differently. They will be unhappy about bits, but still may see the answer very differently from us.

Now, observers such as us and any who voted for vanilla, believe that we are morally superior, and see anyone who voted for the unpleasant candidate as unpleasant people, maybe stupid too. They didn’t see the situation as we did. If no vote had occurred, or no one voted for him, then all people are the same. It takes people to vote for him to raise us up above them. We are brighter, more moral, and that’s because there was 1 correct answer, ours, as theirs was wrong, lesser, less intelligent, less moral. We have entered a state of righteousness that is artificial. It doesn’t exist without others being judged as wrong and flawed.
We now are unwilling to consider that we may have picked differently if we were voting. We will not be able to consider that some analysed every situation, every route forward, future states and options etc. And saw that that choice was much better for the country and all of our futures, and picked him still. Our new morality is dependent on his voters being immoral and stupid.
We are on top. Why look up? no one can be there, right?
Would we find another explanation if we did look up? They shouldnt be up there. They are just deluded, perhaps?
We are stuck in our own trap!  And it applies to all,  The BBC find the objectionable people it only believes exist.  It’s all anti-immigrant.  Proud racists are easy to find,  when they want to be, and are all searched for.

Now Brexit voters  know hiding is wise, because, they will never persuade anyone they are something that destroys the moral perch of whoever interviews them.  You are pretending it’s about other matters, but its immigration really.  You are fighting  war you can’t win.   Never has news a society been in such a bubble of fiction.

Dont assume you wouldnt have voted for Trump

Candidate a: Trump
Candidate b: Clinton

Clinton:- vanilla, nothing positive that stands out much but better vanilla than worse, so a tool to prevent candidate a.
so
the result depends on candidate a being seen as better or worse than vanilla(no change) in some way

So, it almost becomes: vote for Trump, or vote against Trump.
We can rule Clinton out, pretty much:-

so:-

Choice: Trump, yes or no?

you have:-
group a, american voters
group b, rest of world

you have:-
group 1, those that are instantly taken with what the rest of us see as racist, sexist, or otherwise objectionable views.

group 2, the remaining majority, who see those things as objectionable, and cant consider voting that way.

Effect 1: There is a circular effect, where the media obviously interview supporters, they are seen by us as stupid, morons, as we expect from supporters of such ignorant and distasteful views from a not very bright person, and our views are reinforced, the media highlight this more and more and so on

Mode 1: judging candidates normally.
Mode 2: judging candidates to vote for.

state a: To start with and for considerably long, group a and b are both in mode 1
State b: group a start entering mode 2 as time progresses.

Effect 2: as time goes on, Americans start to ask themselves a different question to the rest of us, as they enter state b

thinking of early america timeline, and rest of world:-

what does he say that seems at all positive?
why would anyone support someone like that?

close to election:-

its the economy, stupid!?
promote business, and the economy, hopefully
down to earth, remove washington money leakages, make leaner

will his bad ideas get traction anyway?
will a wall really happen anyway?
how much damage can he do in his time anyway?
the bad stuff will be undone by his successor.
nothing really changes anyway,

do nothing, or make changes, and the successful can be kept,
failures removed. It seems better than dont ‘experiment’ at all.
Even if you dont consider him the safest business man, perhaps.

The Non-Populism Delusion

Wiki:- A factor traditionally held to diminish the value of “Populism” as a category has been that, as Margaret Canovan notes in her 1981 study Populism, Populists rarely call themselves “Populists” and usually reject the term when it is applied to them.

So, it is Populist if we didn’t agree with it, and anything described as Populist that I voted for is incorrectly described.   Sounds familiar?

The real common thread that the label of #Populism often causes people to miss, is that of perceived modern democratic deficit, that of a need of better democracy, or rather one that acts as it should and sees the public in the correct way.  This is a growing requirement all the time and is now starting to make a significant change to national elections and views.  Politicians views do not gel with public requirements.  They live in a world where they are exposed to the public enough for people to be able to get a very good view of their philosophies and their psychologies.  We have reached a tipping point where the old politicians rules of avoidance and denial can be seen as not understanding their place as public employees.  Sure, the media try to trip them up, but when the questions are valid and the answers not, it becomes a problem.

The problem is that 1st we need to separate the term into its 2 parts: Being popular/more favoured purely in terms of votes received; and something akin to a craze or trend.
In the 2nd case, if something is a trend or craze, that means that it is explained without needing individual reasoning or argument. If something is popular, it is popular for a reason which we look to identify, but if it is populist, then we are saying that its somewhat without reason apart from just what everyone else is doing. So when we say something is populist, we can mean that it is without any reason or argument that can be made, except trend, but maybe we could mean that it is a little popular too, in which case there may have been some reason why it was popular. Basically, whatever is heavily voted for, whether it wins or loses, is going to be popular, but we don’t say populist, so we really mean the populist end of the popular/populist scope of populist.

It’s rather final as a term, because it allows us to believe that it has little logic driving its behaviour.

Then if the choice with logic isn’t that choice, its likely to be the opposite choice. So the very definition seems to add validity, wisdom, and balance to any opposing argument.

Anyone wishing to argue otherwise, is also arguing that your opinion isn’t the voice of reason that it so conveniently seemed to have become.

#Populism as we mean now, is a psychological trap, probably a sign of missing the real reason.
#Populism is a word allowing you to stroke your own ego. It often means that it had no valid reason except pure fashion, so i picked correctly.
#Populism is so psychologically convenient when not agreeing but of course sense prevailed when you do agree. either way, youre voice of reason!

I voted, but lost, but should have won.
Populism suggests no other real justification.
I voted but the populists won, I tried to save us, despite the illogical mob behaviour prevailing for no real reason, except that of hyping themselves up into a frenzy. if no reason, then i must have picked correctly. so it makes me correct by its use, correct and the voice moral reason despite the foolish masses.

It is a horrendously dangerous term, and causes any attempt to find reason have low expectations initially, and so the populists end up all being racist, or thick, or both, despite the fact that it’s probably not the case at all, and that one or 2 bad apples happened to tar a whole argument because you were already only looking to increase the power of your position by finding a worse reason than that of you original populism reason, which was bad enough in the first place.

4 Referendum Lessons from Brexit

originally posted here on- Jun 26, 2016 4:07 PM

The lessons to be learned

  • Poll created 50:50 Oscillation, as people change minds as they see their vote as more powerful and feel more empowered, and responsible for the outcome. Often these swinging voters see their vote as a sign of protest but worry about protesting too much and maybe causing change by winning, thus fixing a problem that means winning was the wrong choice, ie many oscillatory patterns.
  • Stay as is always have a lower turn out. More likely to see voting as less important.
  • Threats of consequences often have the opposite to intended effect, making people do exactly that thing.
  • Talk of preventing a further referenum is dangerous – causes people to believe they will never get another chance and so the question becomes “Remain the same forever or change now

The 50% Opinion Poll Effect

Camerons no 2nd referendum meant last chance?

A little love could have prevented Brexit

Lessons learned from Brexit

Search Google

What election results tell us

France

UK Referendum

USA Trump

In each case, the result shows people want change.  They want something other than what they see as a system that is only superficially dependent upon them, during elections, but the choices are “all the same”.  What people mean is that after elections, the people’s wishes are not in mirrored by their elected proxy, and it is really is far from what they see as democratic.  The public are a means to an end for most politicians.   They are useful as a tool when they want what the politician wants, to back up their argument, but for the most part are superfluous.

When the public are least likely to agree with a course of action, the more chance they wont be considered worth consulting.  The politicians know this, but don’t see it as necessary.

The public should be represented by their representative, in a way that mirrors how they would decide themselves.  It doesn’t require consultation necessarily always, if the politician does as they know they should really.

BUT, the public may not be able to choose without enough understanding in some cases,  is the argument that some MPs may offer.  In some cases this may be true, and can be fixed easily as you will see.    It also is rather a dangerous argument, as it may make the politician assume they know enough too easily,and become applied always afterwards to other situations.   What we need is a way for them to see what  the public who understand would decide.  It is often easy to assume if someone doesn’t agree that they aren’t up to speed, and so dismiss those that may understand better than yourself.

 

 

Buy British/American as the best start, but whats the best end?

As a start, if everybody particularly in these foreign deficit running countries just changed 1% of their shopping extra to buying their own nation’s product, then the result to their own pocket would be substantial. Less foreign deficit by a small amount can be enough to change the flow completely where it is running low, and hugely beneficial otherwise. This act of buying is amplified hugely, to the government, and the nation, and yourself ultimately, and quite effectively. As a basic rule, this is great.
At some point you run into a decision, when the choices are few. Do I buy from my own nations company, or a foreign, friendly company that supports our country maybe better. Maybe I buy British from a company that is listed on the stock exchange, and is based almost entirely abroad, where one or 2 directors may get too much money, that isn’t invested back into the nation, but just amassed, or spent abroad too, and all manufacture, and tax is paid abroad, ie the worst case scenario, or do I buy foreign, maybe a friendly country, that supports staff here or maybe pays tax here? Surely the 2nd alternative is better? You think about who spends more of their pay as opposed to saving, which is not necessarily good for a nation, especially where this saving accumulates over generations, here it is bad for government, and currency value, or is it? Where a country has sum total of double the currency in existence but at the same value, well, this provides a buffer, or rather a dependency on a currency being self stabilising over nasty events, even when hit hard, it will recover, okay harder to manipulate but not as hard as it should be, which is good for government. It has many advantages too, and in fact, the actual quantity of money unused to used, and its value, is important. We don’t want it to grow too much, sometimes quite the opposite, but it all depends upon others, and global normals and conditions and national currency and exchange needs and goals, depending on type of economy. Often, what we do has its context in that of others, but I digress.

Ultimately, there is a circular problem with exchange rates and cost of goods, as export and import and made and purchased domestically and not. Over the long-term, supporting self is self limiting, if still correct, as cost of goods and exchange rates change in favour of foreign, the harder you try, and this leads to further thinking, and a final position, which governments must adapt, a policy that is the only real policy to ensure a nation’s future, the best economic policy a national government could ever have, and must always adhere to, and it has nothing to do with how we started at all.
It is a policy that isn’t circular and self limiting in the way so many economic policies are when thought out.