Monday, 16 May 2016

The 'in' crowd. Conclusion: (Updated an hour or so later)

So, I looked into the 'in' crowd a little bit. I tried to find if there are correlations between their interests and perspectives on political areas, that inform their views on the European Union.

It is surprisingly hard work doing this, it took several hours. I can see why so much effort and funding has to be put into this research for even very basic conclusions:

My case study was... *drum role please* ... ten people! One of which seemed to show some interests in views other than their pro EU ones (when prompted by me). So was probably not a good member, some sort of outlier, he also did not have anything to say on any of the areas I searched.

One of them was so vicious I seriously wondered if he was some sort of sociopath. Out of a group of ten people. Statistically I suppose one could be. (Roughly 4% of the population). Out of the subjects I searched, this person was not in line with any of the leftist values such as defending LGBT. Many anti gay jokes on his profile.

One of the areas I searched was UKIP. I found that there were two with the nastiest things to say on UKIP. One of these was the guy I just mentioned. Many of the pro- EU peeps did not like UKIP but their argument I felt when reading them was more couched in a political ambition rather than any real dislike of UKIP. All of them that dealt with the public, involved in political activism and/ or doorstepped in any way were concerned that immigration was the big thing they were not addressing. They effectively had no views of their own about this unless you went back further, because they were so concerned they were being destroyed politically by public concern over this matter.

Climate change was interesting. This was where some correlation was found. About 7/ 10 of them said something unequivocable in support of the Goldman Sachs argument, even using terms like 'climate deniers'. But only one of them had more than about five tweets on this. This was not a big deal but an assumed belief! A building block of the belief system that is not examined! Importantly, not one out of the ten people expressed anything other than favour for the Anthopogenic view. There was not one person that even indulged even temporarily in climate scepticism in this whole group.

The Muslim question was not as forgiving as one might expect. One of the serious hard leftist liberals (anti Corbyn believe it or not!) towed the official lefty line but most were somewhat realistic about this issue or did not mention it.

But the big Eureka moment was when I searched 'Cologne'. Because not one member of this group, or apparently anyone they tweeted had mentioned it... Once!

That was a big news event to have managed to have obliterated from any self interest and from anyone in your social sphere! (I am referring to the incident in Germany where muslim refugees mass sexually assaulted women in the city of Cologne). So we have something here about the psychology of the pro EU group. That they have managed to shield themselves from both the news sources and people that might bring up these issues!

I have noticed very often on the left that they will completely forego news sources, but I have rarely, in fact almost never noticed the same thing from libertarians. Libertarians even quote Guardian articles without trouble. But tell certain leftists there might be information in Breitbart (but I'm not racist!) Express (You're having a laugh aren't you?) Or Telegraph (Why don't you just FUCK OFF AND JOIN THE TORIES!) They will openly shun it and put you down. If you then only repeat views that are from your left wing sources, you're probably not that interesting, and people don't follow you who will be mentioning 'Cologne' in their conversations. (Intense people concerned with freedom)

Also, you obviously will not be following the type of person to mention 'Cologne' in their conversations.

This inability to receive information; the, what I call, shun-the-non-believer effect was shown in some of my twitter engagements with these people:

Basically, he assumes Trump will not be POTUS. It is the accepted wisdom. So asking for some sort of evidence basis for the opinion is just stupid... This is the second very anti UKIP person.

This was to statements like: Crimea voted to join Russia, this was confirmed by independent Western polling... Also, the EU sponsored a Neo Nazi coup of Ukraine... I was *Blocked* after this.

This is what happened when I repeatedly challenged someone on using the word 'Europe' instead of 'EU', and quoted his own tweets back to him to continually make my point, without letting him weasel out of it:

After quoting this back to him when that definition was no longer convenient:

? That's an interesting point, is Russia geographically in Eur... Nevermind! ... Anyway, after highlighting that the first statement was a deliberate manipulation:

So, there is a shallowness to their communication and seemingly perspective. Mention certain facts and you're blocked. Challenge in certain ways and you're blocked. From looking at this I think this is the takeaway lesson, the behaviour that underlies the EU 'in' crowd.

(A lot of these 'in' campaigners, or left campaigners, have no way of controlling immigration in the EU. You can at least talk about the Turkey deal, a chart below. But that does not solve internal to the EU immigration, or the fact Turkey can now send EU migrants as blackmail whenever it wants. That the migrants are now coming through Libya/ Italy instead of Greece, or that Turkey itself wants visa free access to Europe for its citizens. Going door to door to convince people of something it is clearly stated does not solve their problems (staying in the EU)... What are they doing with their lives?)

From Bloomberg:

I can engage in conversation. If someone says to me you contradicted yourself there, I will explain what I meant (with this much ongoing intellectual activity that is second nature!) If someone says to me; What do you think will happen? I will go to the evidence and explain why I think what it is. If it is a result I don't like I will say 'the polls are looking like this at the moment'... I don't agree with it but that is the way it is. I even did so last month on this blog! The telephone polls are remain. The internet polls are leave... There... Done. (So I'm saying the pro EU'ers have no doubt! That in itself should be scary!)

Internet polls were innacurate at the General election but were accurate at the Mayoral election for Sadiq Khan. That is probably because the latter was not rigged but the former most definitely was. (We have Tory election scandal and I also have DSF vote rigging... etc. etc.) There is a trail here. I don't just say... You think we will remain in the EU? For fucks sake! What kind of a moron are you!

Because then it is in fact me that would be the real moron!

The metaphysical connotations of Cologne. 

Now I'm going to return to my extreme weirdness of the whole astrology. UFO ilk.

Ever since this migrant crisis has begun it has all been a little eerie synchronicity wise. Hearing about it coming from Libya on St. Georges day etc. Looking back, it seems the Cologne event itself seems to hook into this:

I summarised how several events of lightning strikes, at very specific times and places, seemed to prequel big changes in society:

I started with the high of the DOW. Then moved onto 9/11 Saudi Arabia pattern. Then there was a lightning strike in a celebrity get me out of here in Australia jungle and I thought this meant that some big event would effect mainstream culture.

The Cologne event, even though it is not as big and bright as the 9/11 destruction of extremism, the Cologne event really could've been it! Seeing as people that have their heads in the sand (pro EU peeps) Still cannot come to grips with what those events mean and how they have effected people, and their perspective of the EU. By engaging in some sort of underhand ploy in using the migrant "refugee crisis". The EU seems to have sealed it's own fate!

At this moment we saw the feminist movement refuse to look at it, and even VICTIM SHAME the assault victims at Cologne. We saw leftists come out with other ridiculous nonsense. Something has changed in popular discourse because of those events as well.

By the way. Those lightning strikes stopped after a strike I theorised was about China and economics, I understand some Chinese data caused havoc today.... Good good!


I forgot one conversation that really characterised this whole thing, but I think I laid my case out well that this does happen a lot (but not always!) with the pro EU crowd. (I did actually also meet fairly nice people as well, as I said though, none that had tweets or responses on Cologne):

Me: Well, dealing directly with countries rather than trading through EU where might be voted down will help!

Aldmars: That's cloud cuckoo land, and if you've any sense you'd know that. #EURemain

Me: Why, because you say so?

Aldmars: no because every credible economist says so. #EURemain

Me: So in other words you don't think for yourself you just believe what authorities say?

Aldmars: I read what experts in the relevant field have to say and disseminate what makes sense to me 

Me: Yet you know nothing of the subject at hand? Can you explain why end of tarriffs quotas not a good thing? Do you understand that Greece cannot devalue under EZ and that is not a good thing? Do you understand how QE increases income disparity? Or do you just accept the view put forward by the 'experts' without thinking. Blind Faith? Like the old school religious institutions.

Aldmars: On another convo, don't keep tweeting me regardless of any reply or i'll block u.

Me: Why would I care about that? I had more points than was in one tweet. You want a uniform one tweet vs other tweet situation like some sort of borg?


So case in point. 

Unsurprisingly this guy is very pro anthropogenic global warming and listening to the 'experts'!

No comments:

Post a Comment