But before I get there, there are some other basic things I would like to explain.
The law of Free Will:
The law of free will basically states that where we have the option to behave positively, we must also have the opposite option. Sometimes, however, often on this mixed density planet, the negative basically rigs the vote so we can only have the negative, or unpolarised, this will change in time but at the moment it is happening all over the place.
This is the theory behind elections. When the negative is in control they give you two equally bad choices (Bush or Clinton!), when things get sorted out a little though, as they are, the positively polarised decision presents itself.
So, there was a time when there were three candidates, Trump, Clinton and Sanders. Trump was the positively polarised, Clinton is the negatively polarised and Sanders is the unpolarised.
In order to have Sanders we'd have to not have any polarity, everyone would have to be in a very basic animalistic place. Trump is the positively polarised and Clinton is his equally negatively polarised option.
So it was clear to me very early on that Sanders was going to be forced out. He is not positively polarised enough to have protection. Despite many other people saying differing things.
The same was true of Brexit, that there were two equally polarised votes.
There was another vote that seemed to offer two choices, Theresa May vs. Andrea Leadsom. But Andrea pulled out. The UKIP contest slipped lower and lower in polarity as options filtered out. But we are left with John Rees Evans vs. Suzanne Evans? With Paul Nuttall in the middle? Perhaps when there is no vote you get an unpolarised figure or perhaps Theresa May is Andrea Leadsoms opposite choice but Andrea chose to pull out.
The low intelligence of remainers:
These butthurt people! I am sort of studying their mindset, with my restless mind. I have come to even more of a conclusion
I have talked before about how they create an echo chamber and insist everyone is racist, therefore people do not reveal to them when they are voting for an alt right candidate and then they are incredibly shocked when they are voted down. Although I went into this in far more detail.
There is another factor of this. I have always noticed that liberals in general, my political opponents very often know almost nothing of what they are talking about. I remember talking to a Trump hating taxi driver recently who pretended to know what he was talking about when the relative depth of my knowledge was revealed in a forensic takedown of Slithery.
There are many many examples of this arrogance that liberals have and I have never, never met a liberal that I thought was well informed. When I would give them a deep fact filled explanation of why Brexit was better they would be adapting to it always. Even the ones that railed against others not knowing facts, these peoples ideas of facts would be that the bank of England said xyz on abc day. Fact finished. No depth. Like a global warming fanatic, just 'authority says so' therefore, I know more facts because I mindlessly parrot what authority says.
I have realised though this low information processing and myopic view backs up the first side of the perspective. Not only do they not know information because they push it away by declaring it racist, they are myopically focused on their own perspective. They are still talking about Brexit and do not spend time thinking about how England will link to Italy or Greece or the Netherlands. America was a big one so they know about this coming, but did not really consider the implications that Trump may win back in June.
In this political debating we have all gotten into I have noticed for a long time, that time after time the alt right know more. They are high information processing. So the alt right take in a lot of information that the liberals do not, (because it would destroy their case). Then things move on and in order to understand events you would need that background the alt right has tapped into, but there is always a handy, stupid version of events the liberals clip onto.
For instance, We hear of 'refugees'. Alt right learn that "refugees" are from all over the place, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, Morocco etc. and that they have a lot of different agendas. Liberals do not learn this. Then the Cologne events that Liberals resist but the Alt right already have a background to understand. Then the terrorist attacks. The liberals do not put information together so when the terrorist attacks happen they are unconnected with poor refugees fleeing Syria (and nowhere else). It is just Islamophobic nonsense that is saying the "refugees" are a problem.
This sounds a level of stupidity that is difficult to believe but it does makes sense as to why liberals carry on saying this crap even in the face of overwhelming evidence (that they have not looked at!)
This process becomes that high informed alt right people end up debating with low informed liberals. Every day the alt right people read and consume more information and the liberals consume relatively little. This means that the alt right are simply not surprised when certain events happen, whereas the liberals are emotionally connected to whatever they are told. But liberals are not emotionally connected to what they are not told, because the media has no use of telling them everything.
Thus... Thus, the point of this diatribe is that... When certain events happen the liberals will be very shocked. Imagine someone who is a remainer that sees things in a myopic view. He cannot take in larger arguments because he is stupid or perhaps, to be honest, overworked, or addicted to some substance or whatever. (But lets not humanize him too much, he is a condescending person.) He thinks all day that there is a cabal of racists out to get him, he is the worser definition of a conspiracy theorist, and his view exists in these strange walls. He talks about Brexit not being a good idea all the time... Huh, kind of sad.
He has not considered Italy or how it will effect UK because it doesn't fit his need to feel morally superior. He wants to tell the 'fascists' off here, not deal with the fact that there might be a movement against the EU in every country, because; his beliefs tell him that every single country would then also have a fascists political movement and, his logic then flags that as a conflict; because it is not intuitively true that more than 50% of every single country is fascist. That makes no sense. It is also simply not true to him that his views have lost at the ballot box because they hold no weight. Because, like the global warming example above, he does not question those views.
So he does not think of Italy, but Italy is still there. Italy offers more to the EU than the UK does. Many liberal university safe space wankers have not thought about Italy either, or lonely cat loving feminists, or Unite Against Fascism funding teachers or whoever else. But, if it were to happen, if Italy votes against the government and moves towards EU exit, there will be another shock.
... and it will be worse than Trump, because Trump was expected. It will be as unexpected as Brexit but with more potentially life changing consequences.
Let the butthurt begin!
Other tidbits of information:
Guido Fawkes annoys me a bit because the news source always seems to be too in with the Tory party, but I should get over that, they have some pretty fantastic news stories (for free no less!)
GUIDO FAWKES: MERKEL REJECTED RIGHT TO REMAIN DEAL
Theresa May wanted to have a deal with Merkel that EU citizens staying in the UK would be allowed to stay as long as our citizens in the EU would have the same treatment. Merkel refused. Donald Tusk has now accused Brexit voters of creating anxiety in the 3.3 million EU citizens living in the UK.
At the Brexit referendum I was sure Britain would be reasonable, thought about in isolation there is no reason Britain should not keep the migrants that have come here. I did not realise Brits abroad could be used as a bargaining chip by the EU and the other population problems that could cause.
We are living in a time of sudden change. I would not put much past anybody at this point. When I find out about history my eyes are opened to the fact that societal change can happen very quickly, in fact hundreds of thousands of people can die from a period of relative quietness in only a few decades. The views leading to the idea that nothing will ever change have no basis. Just a lazy kind of thinking.
So perhaps, even though I did not see it coming, the EU citizens here will be sent back to their home countries. But perhaps a lot of things right now. A worldwide financial crash might dwarf such considerations... A space war and a few deaths from a fallen spacecraft? So many possibilities here, most I probably can't imagine right now, but whatever it is. Some event may happen and simply, with the ease of turning over a leaf, change the emotional context of everything we see on this planet at the moment in our day to day lives...
Just a thought!
No comments:
Post a Comment