Twitter in Not an Option

Philosophy for me is not optional. That may sound arrogant. “I have to pay the rent” you might say. “There are and will always be more pressing things”. Well, I could throw the great ancient philosopher Seneca at you. Philosophy is the only thing he said in a roundabout way. However the best reply to the “pay your way argument” is obviously the words of Jesus. Of course “The Kingdom of God” and what philosophers dedicate their time to thinking about are often one and the same. However Twitter is the target of my thoughts here, humorously at least as remote from “The Kingdom of God” as possible. So why is “philosophy not optional?” Even if I had to “pay the rent” I know from own life experience it is quite possible to not do so, the repercussion is homelessness. On this basis alone politically speaking I will forever hold a very soft spot for the great British writer and philosopher George Orwell. His novel “Down and Out in Paris and London” explores his time as homelessness. I vowed to write my own “Estoy en Mis Cuevas” to describe my experience in Granada, Spain with the same. Time will tell.

I am not particularly prone to count the number of “negative results” as Leonard Elmhirst, a philanthropist and agronomist, would call this frequent fails on his Dartington estate. However Twitter has proven a particularly difficult beast to kill. Engaging with it has all the pleasure of a particular severe attack of IBS. I have come at the beast from a number of difficult angles. Each one seems to bite back after the initial period of enthusiasm with something akin to what Hunter S. Thompson must mean by “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”. I say that without having read the novel but his famous title says enough. To be funny I guess it would be enough in Twitter babble to say “just read it”.

However to hold Leonard up to the light, these engagements are all just negative results giving me something very valuable; namely insight. Obviously twitter is not an option, otherwise I would happily forget this aspect of social media technology. For me it is obviously not optional because I keep coming back to it. It is more optional than philosophy, not least because before the invention of the type-writer there was still a mechanism to exchange ideas. Really? So let me fight fire with fire. Let me bring philosophy into my attempt to kill this beast. Why is trying to do anything even moderately successful on twitter that a large number of very young adults, recently passing the rubicon of 18 years old, manage such a challenge I would prefer a sustained attack of illness if it were optional?

For the purpose, and to set this challenge in stone, let us just propose my objective in using Twitter were to promote this website where I post this thing. I have no idea if it is an article, an essay or whatever such is the nature of the online world. I am OK with that. It is just when attempting to define terms precisely to reach the philosophical results I wish there can, in my opinion, be little quarter spared to vagueness of thought. This thing or essay called “Twitter in Not an Option” is the beginning of a new methodical approach to exploring the mental obstacles or philosophical barriers to using Twitter successfully.

This essay concludes here, although it may just be part 1 of more. However I can close now by saying this is not an article on how to successfully twitter. I cannot predict the future and at the moment my only success has been a variety of technical experiments which have given me “negative results”. Just to clarify running 20 or so twitter accounts over several years in a variety of guises can produce lots of useful “negative” results but not what I would call happiness. That is the only thing I am hoping from out of the medium, “happy” in terms of I can use it as I do other technologies to achieve a positive result I am content with.

Philosophy is rightly disliked by many and with good reason in that it rescues fools. Hence the true foolish, those it will never need to rescue, realise truth and hate it even more. With those elevated plains in mind I dedicate myself to collecting other people’s thoughts (famous or otherwise) on why twitter is pointless etc. After that I shall have a cure as such, or at least some new philosophical insight into why I am failing to use Twitter in the way I want. So here is to my first possible success, promoting my website of words where this thing resides. Salud!

Constitution and Principles of UK Foreign Spouse Association

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL EQUALITY UNDER BRITISH MARRIAGE LAW

  1. British marriage law, providing for the legal union of a couple as spouses, must set measures equally to apply to all foreign nationals universally.
  2. British immigration law, where one half of the spouses are not a British Citizen, should not set measures to discriminate against foreign nationals on the basis of their geographic origin.
  3. A British citizen must not be stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way on the basis of the geographic origin of a spouse or lawfully wedded partner.

Foreign Spouse Association (Constitution)

AIMS & OBJECTIVES

  1. To campaign to lower the fees levied by the UK immigration authorities and set measures which apply equally to all foreign nationals under British marriage law.
  2. To promote a support network accessible to members and their families to defend their rights and liberties arising out of marriage to a foreign national.
  3. To raise and distribute funds to subsidise foreign nationals, who came as marriage partners, to then naturalise as British Citizens once they have ILR (Indefinite Leave to Remain) status and so finish their journey to become British subjects.

Supreme Court Decision Democratic Catch-22 Idiocy

Have you been entertained over the last month by many flavours of Brexit, “soft” or “hard” over the past months? We would have missed all that if article 50 had been implemented immediately. The ultra-cautious approach of Theresa May has allowed a full reconnaissance. The price is a lack of momentum, as everyone knows, permits legal arguments to hijack “due process”. It is now catch-22.

The Supreme Court judgement today spoke of a requirement for an act of Parliament to trigger article 50 because it will take away legal rights. It shows a whole lack of faith in the sovereignty of Parliament itself to believe our elected representatives might not pre-plan their replacements in time. That process was exactly what was scheduled for a full 2 years of negotiation after triggering article 50. So why is there the need for a pre-plan? Effectively the Supreme Court has said a “pre-nuptial” is required. You know, you want to marry Jane or John with all your heart…share everything…completely committed…but if it goes wrong then we have a pre-nuptial agreement. Is it worth the paper? Some will think so.

There is a role for pre-nuptials but is it the “thing to do” before every marriage? Can we look a referendum straight in the face again and not think but?

On the 9th of November I wrote to Michael Gove MP the following:

The presumption of innocence owes a significant debt to the provisions of the Magna Carta, specifically “The right to due process”. By far the most significant thing to have worked to limit the impact of Clause 39 of the Magna Carta is human-rights law, which brought the process of deciding what amounts to a presumption of innocence, or a right to due process, under the adjudication of the court itself.

And this is exactly what human-rights lawyers, like Bindmans LLP, have achieved. The “due process” in which The UK expects to negotiate leave of The EU will now be overseen by supporters of EU courts. What is so sovereign about that? Are we honestly convinced Gina Miller has fought her case, backed up by powerful and rich EU legal interests, to put our “sovereign” back into “Parliamentary Sovereignty”. I think not.

The Supreme Court judgement today gives the immediate impression it is “defending” us against a loss of something. The word sovereign is bandied about, especially the phrase “Parliament is sovereign”. It is as self-referencing as “Brexit is Brexit”. In our system the monarch is ‘sovereign’ and in a constitutional democracy The UK has a system in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives. By definition a referendum is the exercise of power directly. So how do 11 Supreme Court judges, by forcing Theresa May to give the trigger back to our representatives, defend our sovereignty? They do it only by moving the democratic exercise of direct power (namely a referendum) back to representatives, not us.

This decision threatens a peculiar catch-22 for both our democracy and our sovereignty over the next few months and particularly approaching the exit point after two years debate. Whatever Parliamentary Act is now agreed in the very limited time available will cloud and risk poisoning Brexit. A pre-nuptial can ruin a couple’s chance of happiness. Try it!

“Brexit is Brexit” has been replace by “Parliament is sovereign”. The people’s referendum has been stolen by The Supreme Court. We should not underestimate the failure of Theresa May government to rebut this legal challenge over article 50. A “yes” vote in the EU referendum was assumed to lead to leaving The EU without additional scheming. So while her ultra-caution has gained Theresa May a full reconnaissance, the delay in doing so let legal arguments hijack our expected “due process”. This interference threatens the supremacy of the unwritten constitution which makes us British, beginning with the “Great Charter of the Liberties” drawn up at Runnymede on 10 June 1215 on the south bank of the River Thames. So who are these hijackers?

You need look no further than Bindmans LLP. As their corporate website says “We have a reputation for excellence and for being at the cutting edge of legal developments – particularly in relation to issues around human rights”. It is one of the 3 London law firms – Mishcon de Reya, Edwin Coe and Bindmans – which agreed to take up the case of Gina Miller which led to the Supreme Court decision today.

I place small political bets (maximum £25) on occasional outcomes. I am going to place a small bet Article 50 will not now be triggered until after March. I suggest, in defence of Brexit, Theresa May now revise the timetable for triggering article 50. Why not by the end of April or May? It would re-assert her authority and hamper those who are taking advantage of her commitment to a routine timetable. As in the “Life and Death of Colonel Blimp” we must avoid the pitfall of declaring, with rigid solemnity, “War Starts at Midnight”.

According to the novel Catch-22, people who were crazy were not obliged to fly missions, but anyone who applied to stop flying was showing a rational concern for his safety and was, therefore, sane and had to fly. The Supreme Court decision let idiots hijack “due process” and stole the referendum. Now in defence of our democracy, where citizens exercise power directly, we must take a fight to the heart of the legal system itself.

Philosophy of Contribution

Development of a Philosophical Framework to Optimise Contribution

The challenge is, God given, to write my stuff in stimulus to news events but not waste to them by posting on a news community in which while there are like minds, I am too good to be wasting my stuff by posting there. Yes, I could find a news community which values my contribution but that requires searching, the stimulus being a main stream site is not the same as a site which will value my contribution. Ultimately contributors are most valued when they are paid for content, which is not the same as being part of a community. There are many different formats for contributing. The freest form is to publish a book anonymously and seek to sell it (from pamphlet to POD). The other form is to blog and monetise the blog.

This challenge must be undertaken at the same time as a variety of others. In this respect it is not difficult to fall short, especially since the other challenges could be summarised into the categories of serve God (so no legacy matters save that of God’s kingdom, namely worthy acts that leave no “purposeful” legacy are often the best since there selfless act and self-serving act are by definition opposites) and things to survive. Survival means from the basic human act such as washing to the most complex acts such as earning a living or defending family members. I do not have the option to include the challenge of writing philosophy as a means to earn a living unless I learn to how to do so. The challenge of writing philosophy is to contribute something.

The development framework here should therefore be categorised into 3 parts:
1. Philosophy
2. Serving God
3. Survival

It would be perfectly possible to write three development frameworks. However Seneca would hold “Philosophy” to be the only thing to concern oneself. Philosophically that dramatic thought of his could be challenged both in the practical and philosophical approach, not least in terms of a pre-Christian life as Seneca had. However his texts do no suffer from not knowing The Lord through Jesus Christ, our saviour, such was his wisdom and learnedness. So I am not dependent on a need to qualify my admiration of his philosophy by decrying his pre-Christian writings because I know my faith is strong. Rather like most Christian stoics the wealth Seneca accumulated during his lifetime in the service of Roman emperors qualifies his advice at some turns. Of course one not must beguile oneself too much with the higher invocations to ignore one’s own interests, always bearing in mind that in can be the duty of writers to implore their public to one form of conduct while pursuing another course themselves. However it is the delight in the service of philosophy to be able to hold contradictory positions, although also the continual work to uphold the dramatic tension between both. The escape of restfulness never arrives, save in death or absolute poverty. The latter full of the harshest claims upon the self to survive that the beneficial effects on the mind are while cherished, best done so in reflection while not in such a condition where the only challenge is to exit the condition of real poverty.

So the weight of wealth preys upon the mind, both philosophy and Christian duty offering escape. Survival does not offer escape but rather immunity. Hence a rich man working hard to become richer needs no escape, justification is felt as a product of the immunity. So how do I compile PHILOSOPHY and SERVING GOD into my writing framework without awaking SURVIVAL more than a trifle. For contributing to my own self-interests such as financial (receiving a payment) starts to stir the beast. Equally so not contributing, where “time money” is lost where writing is lost. It would be better to spend that time serving God, simply reading The Bible for instance, than scribbling political nonsense which makes no contribution. Unless of course those scribbles were a philosophical pursuit. In that case circularity of the argument applies. So what is contribution?

The Young West European: The Fallacy of Resilience

West European civilisation is caught in the cross-fire between Slavic racism and the Islamic Diaspora. That is withering cross-fire. It is a fallacy that resilience can save the younger generations of Western Europe. One position must be overcome at whatever cost.

The term “Islamic Diaspora” has special meaning in context of Scottish history. America is driving this current “diaspora” unintentionally just as England did as a consequence of the Union of 1707. To secure oil supplies, America relies on regimes where very little allowance is made for social mobility (Saudi Arabia etc.) The consequent lack of mobility creates a diaspora. Development of this “diaspora” in the future can be compared with the Scottish one. When the British ruled the waves, the latter wave of colonialism (India etc.) was forced upon them as the “world power” to keep order. It will be very hard for America in the long term, assuming it remains the one superpower, to afford the non-colonial world it seeks to maintain. It is a good hunch America will eventually need to modify its opposition to some forms of colonialism. Hence the legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan will speak to it in the future.

In the meantime in Western Europe, generations caught in this cross-fire, must respond or be further withered in numbers. Cross-fire is a military term and serves to remind us this cost is not spread equally across generations. General proclamations that younger generations should expect lower living standards than their parents should be a wake-up call to the dangers now jointly faced by new generations of Western Europeans. As retreat is not an option, overcoming cross-fire is only possible if one source is ignored while the other source is over-run as quickly as possible. So which fire to attack?

The Islamic Diaspora being created in Western Europe is a consequence of American policy toward the world, the Middle East in particular. It is unlikely American’s radical opposition to any form of colonial government can be over-run or even speeded up. It requires the legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan to become self-evident. At the very least it requires the passage of time for what is desired to be seen. Namely that self-supporting “democratic” governments left behind after military withdrawals cannot survive the test of time. Until that proves to be false, America can maintain such an illusion such a possibility exists. Of course, remove the illusion and only two possibilities exist. Either never get involved (and hence abrogate the responsibility for maintaining world security for essential supplies such as oil) or accept some type of permanent foreign service abroad is required after a major military withdrawal (neo-colonialism). This maturation of American foreign policy may take several decades. The young generations of Western Europe do not have the time, caught in such cross-fire, to wait for America to stop governing in a manner which gives rise to wave after wave of Islamic refugees arriving in Europe.

So if the younger generations of West Europe wish to preserve West European civilisation, such cross-fire is overcome by over-running the other fire. That is Slavic racism. “West European civilisation” can be used to mean a host of things. However in the context of “anti-racism”, especially in relation to the Slavic races, it offers a much narrower definition. Behind the Iron Curtain of the Soviet Union, their people were not subject to much, if any at all, socialisation with non-whites. In contrast West Europe post 1945 accepted large scale non-white immigration.

Rome was not built in a day. Whatever we chose to call “general tolerance and goodwill” to people irrespective of colour, Western Europe’s history post 1945 proves such “civilised” values take generations to root and hold. It is totally unrealistic and a sham to believe those peoples previously held behind an Iron Curtain, able to travel freely into Western Europe from 2004, will generally acquire such values by immersion. Logically it requires a similar cultural program directed by their governments at home, evoking a gradual change in attitude taking several generations. This logic also extends to such people as East Germans, previously also held behind The Iron Curtain.

Therefore the only solution to avoid the decimation of West European civilisation, caught in the cross-fire between Slavic racism and the Islamic Diaspora, is to ignore the growing Islamic Diaspora and tackle head-on Slavic racism. The solution is very simple and is also free from any type of religious fight. Simply shut the door to the East Europeans entering Western Europe and kick Germany out of West Europe. More simply put, form a new European Economic Community (E.E.C.) among the original members of the 1992 Single Market but without German membership. It is for Germany to take financial and cultural responsibility to educate the Slav nations in the values of racial tolerance, possibly taking them several generations. Even more importantly, let the Germans do business with the new European Economic Community (E.E.C.) in a much fairer manner. Once outside our new single European market, their manufactured goods will be subject to import tariffs as our new governments sees fit.

The Principle of Trust under “Cross-fire”

I have argued elsewhere that Western European culture and prosperity is under two severe pressures, from “Slavic racism” and “The Islamic Diaspora”. My military analogy was that under order “cross-fire”, withering fire from both sides causing great losses, only one of the two components must be neutralised for the “cross-fire” to end. My thesis under that analogy was we Western Europeans should seek to neutralise “Slavic racism” first.

I argue here under “The Principle of Trust under ‘Cross-fire’” that we need correct leadership if we, the British people, on behalf of the wider West European peoples, are to successfully withdraw from The European Union. The principle of trust, or an oath to serve, is a bridge across a “fear” below which requires the support of a minimum two pillars. Those two pillars from the perspective of our South American community resident in the UK are “consulates abroad and the supporting infrastructure” and “religious freedoms under the crown”.

There is great uncertainty over what “new geo-political agreements” (or trade deals) the UK would be able to make after withdrawing from The European Union. Clarity on what might be possible is largely impossible because deals are made “in good faith” and few potential trading partners to new agreements will risk undermining their existing investment in trading relations with The European Union on the perilous assumption a plebiscite in the UK on June 23rd will create anything new.  It is this lack of certainty which serves as the main mechanism for the spread of fear, or “Project Fear” as coined by the SNP during The Scottish Referendum of 2014.

In order to trust a leader (or a leadership) most people will require news of some type of solution or evidence of rational planning. Arguably The SNP leadership failed to faithfully stipulate their preferred choice of monetary mechanism post-Exit and consequently the referendum was lost. The people did not lost their faith in the SNP (the election of 54 members to The House of Commons in 2015 testament to that) but rather they had little faith in the SNP plan for a new monetary agreement after withdrawing from the UK, namely staying with the Pound. Events proved it was incumbent upon the SNP to choose one or the other, issuing a new currency or joining The Euro. Any plan is better than none at all and by this measure the SNP leadership failed.

So does “Vote Leave” currently have any plan? The answer must be a resounding no. The purpose of this paper is to correct that. The SNP of course produced “Scotland’s Future” which was a 650 page government white paper published on 26 November 2013 by the Scottish Government under First Minister Alex Salmond. It laid out the case for Scottish independence and the means through which Scotland would become an independent country in personal union with the United Kingdom. Salmond described it as the “most comprehensive blueprint for an independent country ever published”. In hindsight we can therefore quite easily argue that to fail to produce some type of solution or evidence of rational planning to conquer the main mechanism for the spread of fear, or “Project Fear” is to plan to fail. Arguable in hindsight the SNP would have been better served to have either chosen the path of issuing a new currency or joining The Euro and sought to have vigorously defended their position. Anything was better than fudging the issue (“London cannot stop us staying with the pound”) and so permitting the growth of a nebulous fear around it. Again, any plan is better than none at all.

I have already stated the plan I propose, from the perspective of our South American community resident in the UK, is built around “consulates abroad and the supporting infrastructure” and “religious freedoms under the crown”. However it would be simpler to say the plan must effectively specify how a “new UK bill of rights will bypass The ECHR (European Court of Human Rights)”. It is not incumbent on the leadership of “Vote Leave” to provide all the details for such a new bill or act of Parliament, which undoubtedly will require a combined effort of the UK’s best legal brains post exit, but to state clearly the plan for it.

I argue here under “The Principle of Trust under ‘Cross-fire’” that the plan must include a cost-benefit analysis of the UK maintaining “consulates abroad and the supporting infrastructure” and “religious freedoms under the crown”. The latter may seem more closely aligned to the thorny debate over “rights” and “liberties” as one would expect from something replacing The ECHR. However it is our network of consulates abroad, already operating outside the shared visa processing system of Europe (free movement in The Schengen Area) which not only protects those rights and liberties abroad but sustains a plethora of agreements for a small country to act globally. If your son or daughter marries someone abroad, if you lose your passport on holiday, if you seek to export into new markets, if you want to stop us trading with countries which abuse human rights…then how the UK will invest and more importantly improve one pillar of trust in “consulates abroad and the supporting infrastructure” is vital to the success of how our liberties and rights will be defended should we withdraw from The European Union.