META-NOMAD

Escaping the Echo Part 2: Post-Brexit Discourse

Brexit, 2016’s original political leviathan…till it got Trumped. It’s been done to death, the media had way more than a field day, opinion pieces coming out from every stinky uninformed crevice imaginable, but in this neo-Diana outpouring there was an elusive truth, hidden by the many.

 

Prior to the EU I’m sure there were those who hung EU flags from their house, I’m sure there were lists upon lists of reasons we should stay, I’m sure that a common topic of discussion was the EU and its benefits for Great Britain. Ok, I apologise for the conjecture, I understand that perhaps the EU was something we took for granted, I get that’s it’s not something one would speak about on a daily basis. However, as soon as this referendum hit it seems everyone and his dog knew all there was to know about the EU, why it’s great, why it’s bad, people who I’d never heard speak of anything political emerged from the woodwork speaking of the EU’s merits, or its inherent flaws, however the focal point of this piece isn’t on this dialogue, it’s on what happened after this dialogue…post-Brexit dialogue.

 

David Cameron decides to have a referendum as to whether or not we should leave the EU.

The British nation votes either leave or remain.

The decision voted in by the majority was to leave the EU

With 51.9% voting to leave, and 48.1% voting to remain, and 27.8% of the country not bothering.

It was a close one.

 

In an instantaneous flash consisting of two-bit memes and high pitched whinging the ‘remainers’ – those who voted to remain – began their supposedly just assault on democracy. “The results are too close!” they cried, “There should be another referendum” they argued, without even the subtlest hint of sarcasm, “They lied to us!” was also popular, and my personal favourites “This is undemocratic” and “This is NOT democracy.” In terms of my life so far, I can’t think of another two sentences of this length that have had such an impact on my way of thinking. 3 words, then 4, causing a structural shift in the framework of a brain. I’ll….remain forever thankful. Anyway, let’s annoy prog-remainers even more by doing something dated and archaic, a list:

  1. “There should be another referendum!”

There should absolutely, positively, 100% never be another referendum on whether or not we should leave the EU, why you ask? Because this is how democratic countries fuckin’ work, the people vote, and the largest majority win. To have another referendum just because one side didn’t get their preferred outcome would make the voting system entirely pointless.

 

  1. “The results are too close!”

So what if the results are only different by 1 or 2%? In terms of an entire country that’s a lot of people, majority wins in democracy – it is “rule of the majority” after all.

 

  1. “They lied to us!”

I’m sorry, is this literally your first experience of absolutely anything political? People lie to get the result they wish, and to be quite honest if you really thought that as soon as the decision was made £350 million would go straight into the NHS – in regards to Farage’s bus – then to be quite honest, you’re far too precious to be anywhere near this kind of thing.

3. “This is undemocratic”

Are you done laughing? Good. I added two little quotes on democracy in regards to the Brexit decision because I find it unapologetically hilarious, to say that a democrat referendum open to the entire country that’s winning outcome was based on majority vote is being called undemocratic. Do I have to explain this further?

4. “This is NOT democracy”

 

There’s nothing else to add here other that: “This is democracy!”

So, what unites all this talk, all this dialogue and discussion from one side, what makes everyone come together and suddenly understand it all? One simple factor – well actually, one simple phrase can sum it all up –

“No one can do, say or decide anything unless it’s in agreement with what I/we want!”

That’s it, the remainers only believe in democracy when it works in their favour, the system is only working when WE win. It’s utter narcissism and the whining that follows it should be shunned and laughed out of the room.

What did I get from all this? My eyes torn open, a side of politics I had been aligned with my entire life just let its guard down, it just let everyone know what it has at its root, a little piece of the other side…the one they apparently despise.

Everything I’d known had just been ripped apart, not instantly however, it took a few days/weeks for the gears to crank back enough paces for me to, well…begin again. I’d been controlled by an echo-chamber of self-interest and inclusion, and now the toys have dropped from the crib, the kids begin to panic and scream and whine, the curtain has been torn back and what you’re left with is a shambling spindly mess of a system, help up by little more than conjecture of the cliché idea of what it is to be good. To believe you’re doing the virtuous thing is enough, that’ll do, or perhaps you’re just bullshitting yourself.

https://www.meta-nomad.net/?p=80 PART 1

Escaping the Echo Part 1: Drowning in Progressivism

“There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys, how’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?”

This short didactic little parable was used at the start of David Foster Wallace’s commencement speech at Kenyon College in 2005. The original intention of which was to bring liberal-arts-education students outside of their own (often) solipsistic perspective, making it clear that: “the most obvious, ubiquitous, important realities are often the ones that are the hardest to see and talk about.”.

Much like many close friends I was part of a dialogue that was entirely suffocated by its own virtuous justification, we are the ones that are right, we are pushing for the best possible future, forward we must go, never looking back, for we are good! Everything that we were discussing could never escape our own perspective of what we had be taught ‘progress’ was. Whig history encapsulated basically, there’s not much more to it than just letting things happen and expecting…believing they are getting better, and to truly question, look and step-outside this view of the world was a bad, ignorant and even offensive idea. Well, I’m here to say “What the hell is water?”

2016 was one hell of year, I mean who’d have thought that people who are getting old might actually die, I mean really, who would have thought that people nearing, if not long past the average age of life-expectancy would actually die. All mortality jokes aside 2016 was some serious ju-ju, Brexit, Trump, global terrorism, death of the dream and various literal manifestations of a failing system that was refusing to confront its own weak supports. These various moments helped bring to light the obvious, made to reveal itself from its supposedly justified concealment, that’s not to say 2014 or 2015 were any better, merely that the events that transpired in 2016 were a serious help in terms of – accidentally – allowing people to understand that they can still think freely, they can still head for the exit.

Needless to say I was drowning in liberal progressive pandering, whiggish-apathy and a generalized acceptance that what everyone was doing was correct and should just…progress. I thought highly of Chomsky, and not once did I stop and think about his high status as a professor within the system he constantly berates. I voted to remain in the EU and very quickly came to realise that perhaps leaving isn’t going to be the end of everything-ever, and may potentially stop the unfiltered dialogues of the left, I was somewhat of a feminist and couldn’t bring myself to critisize a system which had in place methods to stop any criticism, via simply manipulating the view of how much power it had over mainstream media. I thought Jeremy Corbyn was the best hope for my country, not once did I think to question his motives in terms of constraining the element of free speech and true thought towards the parties own political gains. The binary morality of the left was becoming all too heavy on some very flimsy supports which eventually cracked and tumbled thanks to various thinkers and writings (the likes of which I shall go into in Part 2.).

This is not to say that I ever thought anything was a simple case of one movement being right and the other being wrong, it’s more that I didn’t realise that the progressive system in general was moving towards this type of reductionist thinking, not accidentally or via some chaotic chance, but purposely moving towards a tighter range of discussion to further their ideology, oppressing the range of accepted public opinion to such an extent that even merely questioning the motives of certain political groups who have you deemed as a racist, mysogynist or nazi.

Think of this first post as an overview, a blueprint of a failed system, my short history of following a step-by-step  guide towards a failed state, how naive, how silly, how truly ignorant of me to not listen, not look at what was right under my nose all this time, and not only did I smell it, see it and feel it, I also believed it to be true, correct and the only possible way. It isn’t.

A thing intended;

META: –

1. – “pertaining to or noting a story, conversation, character, etc., that consciously references or comments upon its own subject or features, often in the form of parody:”

3. – “a consciously and playfully self-referential story, conversation, etc.:”

2. “a prefix added to the name of a subject and designating another subject that analyzes the original one but at a more abstract, higher level:”

1. – “indicating change, alteration, or alternation: metabolism, metamorphosis”

 

NOMAD – THE DELEUZIAN CONCEPT OF THE NOMAD:

“The nomad has a territory; he follows customary paths; he goes from one point to another; he is not ignorant of points (water points, dwelling points, assembly points, etc.). But the question is what in nomad life is a principle and what is only a consequence. To begin with, although the points determine paths, they are strictly subordinated to the paths they determine, the reverse happens with the sedentary. The water point is reached only in order to be left behind; every point is a relay and exists only as a relay. A path is always between two points, but the in-between has taken on all the consistency and enjoys both an autonomy and a direction of its own. The life of the nomad is the intermezzo. (380)”  – MORE

Used to be a baker.