an eu referendum farce comes to the fore?

Suppose the referendum was done as a farce to deal with tory inside divisions..?

Then it would have been a charade, no?

A Charade, a farce – lets not focus on these meanings now.. What seems to perhaps get clearer is that the referendum was ill thought of – perhaps because the focus was on the tory party in fights, rather than the question at hand – should britain be out or remain in the eu?

Ill thought? There was a parliamentary act to OK the referendum, no?

Yes.. But what did they think might happen if people voted to leave? How could a house of commons and the lords OK a Leave referendum while being against the exit?

Can they not just rubberstamp the leave decision?

Theoretically they could, but then that could undermine the sovereignty of parliament, the operation which enables the parliament to be independent and pass laws that rule and are subject to scrutiny – if they undermine that basic tenet of uk constitution, will the rest not be affected?

A long speculation..

Perhaps.. They could say this is an exceptional case, I suppose. However, once we get exceptional cases, they can become a norm.. In that sense, perhaps its a learned speculation?

Do they talk of making exceptions?

I have not heard of that. Have heard stuff like these 6 genius ideas.

Oh! Sounds a bit reassuring. This way or the other they will halt brexit in its tracks!

I am for remaining, but not via power and coercion. This is short-termism. You can get the remain despite the referendum, but piss enough people off along the way that will cause further strife, violence, frustration, and who knows – can it not be that ukip might say: elect us and we’ll do the referendum’s bid? Not just that, they can then pose as both democratic and against the elite establishment.. Is this too far fetched?

brexiters and bremainers unite?

Politics again?

Should stop it really – but here’s an itchy idea.. There’s this 2nd referendum petition. yes?

The one being investigated for fraud?

Yes.. The same one that started by a brexiter.
I think why not have a 2nd referendum indeed – but for different reasons?

Reason? Are you not just being a sore loser?

Perhaps, but maybe not exactly. Say I voted to leave because i rather fancied the idea of 350 million to nhs per week, and/or control over immigration.. Lets assume, i think a fair assumption, that a fair few people voted leave hoping for a delivery of such promises?


In that case, will a brexiter be a winner or loser when realising the promises were not to be delivered?

Based on the link?

No.. There are others, and more.

So.. What are you say?

I think that there might be something here that unites – or could unite – most people involved. The issue of honesty. If people voted for a given choice, however will not get that choice which was promised by words, repetitions, failures to deny, images and un uttered implications – are we not all entitled for a 2nd, a more honest referendum?

Not exactly. The way things work, we have general instructions given to politicians – and they are free to interpret these..

Yes.. That is in general elections, with the idea of replacing politicians that might have not delivered on the general instructions/promises – using the next elections.. A referendum might be different in a sense that there is no follow up to critically check politicians?

hummm.. but you are just suggesting a follow up, no? 😉 don’t you have a better reason?

I think perhaps a better, and more unifying reason for a 2nd referendum might be that we can think of referendums – if not general elections – as some sort of contracts. We make a specific agreement – do we want to be in or out of eu? If we are out of the eu – then we get XYZ. and if we are in – we get ABC. That is an agreement, a contract, no? If i give you a pound, you give me X cup of coffee, and if i give you 2 pounds, you give me Z cup of coffee. We have these sort of contracts constantly, no?

Go on..

So if we think of the referendum as a specific kind of contract, one which is being broken for the side that has “won”, why not have a 2nd where the premises are deliverable?

Are you saying that leaving eu is not deliverable?

I am saying it is yn deliverable in the way it was promised. Would a person that fancied extra cash for nhs voted out if they knew that cash will not be coming?

questioning and an how with brexit in mind?

How immigration in voters’ minds links with nhs, education, housing, jobs and other – non immigration bread n butter politics?

    “voters’ minds”?

    Any better way to note that the immigration concerns, as a person being concerned about it – seem honest and i think deserve respect. however, i also think that a reciprocal approach is valid as well. ie the concern that it could be that the focus on immigration is a symptom rather than a cause. Specially since i’d like to respect people’s self assertion claiming there is no racist intent. Is is a view that might open up a fearless discussion?

EU money doesn’t buy love?

Brexit welsh with 2 mid fingers up to labour?

An elite member views on a “working class” revolt?

Another polemic re why choose brexit?

No income – or not much of it – no europe?

Voters for brexit get the bregret pill?

A brexit explanation quicky?

    Sounds like the quicky is based on stuff like this and that?

a bremainer’s solution?

For bremainers’ with a bit of a disappointment regarding brexit? Why not marry/civil-partner an EU person that fancies a way to stay in the UK? A win-win, no?

Perhaps if the independent rulers of UK will find out – they might shut that route into europe as well?

Hold on, aren’t we the ones’ supposed to be more indie now..?

sense nonsense and senselessness?

Does it sound nonsensical? “Sense nonsense and senselessness?”

Post brexit, some remain people try to “make sense” out of this referendum. Perhaps its sensual to try make sense, however – can it be nonsensical?
I think, brexit or not, when people face a sense of uncertainty, some un-known, yet-to-be comprehended, etc. – there is a tendency to try and make sense?

Make sense meaning – to understand?

Maybe that is included – but am thinking that its an attempt to give the not-yet understood – some kind of a name.. Like saying brexiters are xenophobes, or that they just can not understand, or that the poor poor people who feel fedup with the trap of being constantly taken advantage of – have been had again..

Perhaps not an understanding then.. 😉 Maybe making sense is more like making a plausible explanation for something that is utterly not yet understood?

I can go with that.. OK.. where was I?

Talking about stopping to make sense perhaps?

LOL.. Not this one.. However perhaps its an interesting example?

In what way?

That to stop making sense is an attempt to Not do something that senses – feels – needed. Just don’t do it! Does it work? Maybe occasionally – but not on a regular bases.. If I feel like making sense and just do not – it might be laziness, it might be other stuff and at some point I need to try making sense..

Are we not talking here about not making sense?

A critique of making sense.. Or questioning the ability to actually make sense when trying?

Now am a bit confused here..

Yes.. It sounds confusing.. However, if I do not know you, or someone, or some issue – how can I make sense without being prejudiced, or lean in a prejudiced direction?

Are you talking about: Hey, I do not understand why a person did something – perhaps its (place here a “reason”)?

Yes.. You see it a lot on the road, with driving.. People get relatively easy pissed off and jump into conclusions about other road users. Perhaps “prejudice” is too strong a term here?

Sounds a bit ott.. 😉

OK.. Lets’ get back to the road.. What if people didn’t jump into conclusions, but did more of: why did you do what you just did? Kind of approaches..

Is this not an attempt to make sense?

An attempt in that direction with the other person/people involved.

What if they didn’t get involved?

Exactly! If they didn’t, then I can not make sense other than – I know that I do not know.

Is that the only thing?

No.. We also know what we experienced the other person doing, or saying. So in case of brexit – i know they link immigration with jobs, housing and other stuff. But I do not know how, nor why.

Don’t you reject the link with immigration?


Is this not an ideology to give up if you don’t make sense with that rejection in mind?

Maybe… I think though that if I concentrate of the questions of the stuff that people say disturbs them – eg economy – then maybe sense could be made.. Who knows, perhaps if I went through the other person’s sensations, maybe I’ll make an immigration link as well.. I doubt it, but I doubt my reasoning too.. 😉

Why not say: hey, when you link housing to immigration its wrong! Housing, for example, is not affected by immigration given that there are only few immigrants that actually seek special housing, etc.?

Does it not feel condescending and not-really trying to understand when approaching with ready-made answers? How can you combat the right wing xenophobes that say – Hey, I understand you have a problem with housing. But you know – its the darn immigrants! Can you sense the difference..?

exit brexit hysterically?

OK. So there was a referendum. The tory uber right ousted the tory right and the subject was europe.

There was/is a lexit element, no?

Sure. If we read the statement – see link above – they still call for stuff that happens regardless (eg resignation) and has nothing to do with how stuff operates. (eg elections.) However, will they continue to push for a left agenda?


But isn’t the point rather more complex than lexit or not? Is it not that the people who delivered brexit are said to be – not natural tories?

Natural labour voters?

Yes. Like the people from most of the north.. However, the point thing is, in my mind – that in effect they voted for right wingers but From a left perspective, no?

Could be. How can we tell?

Check the worries that were linked with immigration by the tories/ukip. Jobs, housing, education, health, transport – basic social stuff that was linked with immigration. ie why everything turned a bit stinky? Eu allows immigration, blah blah. yes?

Simplistic, but that seem to have been the direction.. Still not getting the point.. 😉

Sure.. I think that since the tories can not deliver better sense of safety in life, the left can use it as an illustration of how the right is misleading people?

What do you mean? Just sit and wait for tories to fuckup?

It does sound like it.. 🙁 I think that they will inevitably fuckup.. However, the question is how to expose them while not alienating people in the process. Saying, like a fair few people do, stuff to the tune of indignation and accusation – you guys voted wrongly, is condescending and alienating. Why do that?

Well.. People do make mistakes no? Even if they are poor..

Sure. But also if you are a southern middle class.. If you want someone to interact with you, are you going to lecture them? Are you going to accuse them?

predicted predictive programming?

Never heard of predictive programming? I thought it was some sort of a programmer’s “paradigm”. Maybe a bit like functional programming.
I think the following links say I was wrong? (conspiracy ideas) (more conspiracies conspired against my initial idea?) (..conspiracy again?)
but hey..
check this:
(nothing like what i initially had in mind – but pheeeew, end of feeling conspired upon?)

upsetting the markets – a memorial?

I seem to recall so called arguments for stuff like bailing out the banks in 2008, or the attacks by the capitalists on social policies suggested by the labour party in the 80’s and recently by Corbyn. Am I mis-recalling? Has something gone wrong with my memory?
Why is it that, for example, with the TTIP agreement, corporations could take legal action against democratically elected governments if these pursue policies which might impinge upon their possible profits?

I think bringing the TTIP into this is a bit too far..

Thought it might be an example for how far things might go to keep markets happy.. Wrong? Well.. The point is that with this eu referendum, suddenly making the markets a bit jittery, unhappy, upset and the like – is not an issue what so ever! Is it not a bit surprising? Or even curious?

What is the it that might be curious?

That when the discourse is within capitalistic elements that work with the “market forces” – there is no question of upsetting the traders/gamblers this way or another. However, when the questions involved in a given discourse seem unfamiliar or hostile to the capitalist market – then suddenly upsetting the mood in the stock exchanges becomes a major issue.

Well.. Hummmm.. What is the deal here.. If you heared something you understood, its probable that you’d feel more relaxed about that then if it was something that seemed out of your context. No?

True. However, and perhaps indeed this is the crux of the question – then upsetting the markets is a political question rather than “purely economic”? Perhaps when the market upsets me, or destroys people’s livelihoods and aspirations; when the markets’ actions shuts working places and industries for entire communities, when the market forces coerces people to work more while being payed less, when through the market logic we get people living in constant distress having to juggle low payed work just to keep barely afloat – perhaps all these effects upon people are not an outcome of some economic necessity? Perhaps we can now see that in-fact, these are indeed as suspected, an outcome of a political motivated view?

What, because the markets aren’t too upset by a possible brexit?

No. lol.. Yes.. Because the markets do not mind – do not protest or make an issue along the lines of “don’t upset us” – despite obviously being in a bit of a turmoil. ie When a tory/capitalist tells me that scrapping paid education might, errr, upset the markets – and that is just pure economics, perhaps now i can produce a theorem rather than a supposition as to why it is a political not a “pure” economic question?

A theorem?

Yes.. If the market upsetness was something to do with pure economics, then surely, by negation, the process of brexit referendum which upsets the markets is also a pure economic issue that we shouldn’t engage with. (given the axiom of not upsetting markets) However, since upsetting markets is fine when its politically expedient for the ruling tory/capitalist party – then it points towards the axiom being either wrong or incorrect?

Are you not doing some sort of over correlations here?

when 2 does not = 2?

x = x?

not always.. check this:
2 = 2 right?


now.. what happens when we have 2 apples and 2 clouds? are they equal?

there are 2 of each..

but then they are equal in the sense of Number – 2 – not in the sense of what the elements are. In a way, does it not really say here that 2 = 2 if and when 2 is a numerical element? When 2 is indeed the number 2. The number’s physicality.
However, when the physicality alters to other elements, 2 of different elements might not be equal.

Sure.. That’s why we convert currencies and don’t always swap 2 gold nuggets with 2 scooters..?

Yes.. It seems obvious, but I think its worth mentioning because it highlights the physicality of numbers?

Maybe its a bit too subtle point?

Maybe.. However, if it is, perhaps it means that its not worth mentioning the particular physicality of X?

What do you mean??

ie when x = x but might not?

a misogynistic right of right for the right to kill?

Is it too early to draw a line, a link, between 2 dots? Yvette Cooper, it seems, has received death threats in connection to the eu referendum.

Is it something the right wingers have, or might harbour against women?

Perhaps its my own prejudices towards the right?

Could be.. I hope am not prejudiced, but who am I to judge myself? Perhaps am just noting a possibility because have not seen this particular one noted elsewhere..

Hold on.. There was something regarding the Orlando shooting and the guy’s treatment of women.. Indeed, of mass shooters and their misogynistic leanings..

Yes.. However I will not go as far as linking with mass shootersorlando or otherwise. Just, perhaps, noting a possible plausible link..

Why note that “possible” link?

No idea!!! It just gives me an itch.. I suppose..

a conservative corbyn?

Jeremy Corbyn interviewed by democracynow’s Amy Goodman regarding the eu referendum.
While it seems refreshing to hear a person from the parliament talking about the process and issues involved like an adult to other equal adults – I think there is also a revelation of Corbyn’s – left leaningand small c conservativism.

Blair was a small c conservative, no?

Hummm.. Lets not get distracted for now?
What I refer to is, in the last bit, Corbyn refers to people coming together. When he tells which people come together, we get a seemingly wide range of groups based of perceived “ethnic” and religious backgrounds. Muslims, afro-carrabeans, Indians, Buddhists, etc..

Is that conservative?

I’d say that it can be argued that the very categorisation of people based on elements that are of epistemic bases, is conservative. The division between christians and mazdayasnas for example, is based on religions – on how a group of people uses a common knowns to identify itself – while leaving the hierarchical structure in-tact.

Hummmm.. Yes.. Religions do that. So do charities if you agree with Wilde’s assertions regarding the wider society.. So what’s new?

Not sure “new”, however, I am just trying to point that corbyn, and many people who support him, seem to forget the kind of groups that actually make up the social fabric, the groupings that force certain heirarchies on societies.


To put this simply, I hope to be wrong, but do you think people that might earn more than a certain amount, might have attended the gathering corbyn referred to?

They might. It is not inconceivable.

Sure. However, if they did, corbyn did not say “rich and poor” as an example of a mixed group.

Perhaps he didn’t because of the religious nature of the event?

Maybe.. There is a point there..

..and anyway.. Why dod you refer to Corbyn as a person? Is it a personal thing?

Hummm.. Perhaps not the best way to write about it.. Yes.. am talking about the conservativism of People that do the groupings of societies based on religion and ethnicities..

What about sexual preferences and gender perceptions?

An interesting point.. Do you think gays and trans people attended the celebration..?

Perhaps poor ones?

Maybe poorly acknowledged ones?

Who knows.. Corbyn didn’t tell..

meanings, intents and operations from

today’s churl boon?

What do you mean by “today’s churl boon”?
Meaning? Perhaps, the 3 words using others: the gift of human simplicity for today.

How did you get that from churl boon?

Well.. Boon can mean a gift. Churl can mean something like a pleb, but usually in english it is taken as a sneer like: don’t be churlish. That sneering is directed at the simplicity of being a churl. Being a simpleton.

OK.. a bit long-winded.. However, lets say that there is a meaning to “today’s churl boon”. Now, talk about intention?

Actually, to do the intent bit, I think the operation should be the next element..

Go on..?

Operations, in this sense, are the question of how something is. So “today’s churl boon”, beyond its meanings and intentions, has a certain way of being. “today’s churl boon” operates in a particular way that might – or might not – apply to that line only. However, it offers an abstraction, perhaps an abstract, that can be applied, operated with, in other circumstances.


Yes.. Perhaps am pussyfooting there.. 😉 The operation is taking not very familiar terms and putting them together in a way that has a grammatical sense, and can be meaningful.

This can be done in other languages?

I presume so.

So why not say something like: today’s barking maroon?

How does it apply?

An operation of grammatically correct terms in unusual way?*

Sure.. I see.. Well.. The operation is precisely that kind of a thing. I said: “today’s churl boon” – but there can be others, and other meanings. That’s why the separation between meaning and operation..

Distinction, you mean..?

Precisely.. 😉

..and intention?

Yes. for the intention, I had to type this whole post. The intent in the line “today’s churl boon” here is to provide a way to discuss the differences between meanings, intents and operations.

oh! ok.. but WHY??!!

Sure. I went to check networking the unseen. There was a talk about stuff like Australian aborigines paintings in which they talked about stories and/or data/information that people can deduce from them images. It occured to me that, for example, there seem to be a fair bit usage of circles – but what seemed a circle to me, was talked about as a star. More over, that particular circle turned star, was intended to represent an idea of Home…
I think there is a critical sense in which these differences, the intervals between meanings, intent and operations might be questioned, no?

Not always.

Yes.. Though then the question might be – when not? 😉

* I think the grammatical but unusual way is part of the “today’s churl boon” line, as described before. However, this might be best underlined in here..?

how to infinitely distribute bitcoins?

Bitcoin, like other cryptocurrencies is not made from linking to any materials, so can it not be produced infinitely?

The US dollar $$ used to be backed by gold, not the case since the 60’s. However, the dollar, like pound and other national coin currencies, have physicalities of paper/metal/plastic, and histories of being linked with materials like gold, silver, etc.

Cryptocurrencies do have a physicality as well. The physical elements of coins such as Dash, Bitcoin, Litecoin and others, are a history of electricity usage and numbers. The numbers are made by an algorithm which runs on computers looking for a specific kind of numbers – hence using electricity a fair bit.

The interesting thing here for the question of infinity is the physicality of numbers.

Why do I think so? Numbers do not = infinity! In fact infinity is to demote stuff which isn’t numbers. We can not count all the even numbers, so lets call it an even infinity – and so on.

Sure. However, lets bring in banach-tarski paradox, ok?

Why not some other paradox?

Because the banach tarski paradox works Only in the realm of numbers. It allows seemingly infinite additions of copies from the same element. Like having a ball, dividing it and putting it back together in a way that: 1. leaves elements of the original ball unused. And 2. allows using the unused elements to create a new ball. Hence, mathematically, we get 2 or more balls out of a single ball, using the same numbers as in the “original” ball.

Ball balls?

Perhaps. But since it operates in mathematical realities, and cryptocurrencies are numbers only – maybe we can make scarcity unviable in cryptocurrencies?

But we want scarcity to make the currency have real value, no?

the violence of cultured sensations?

Just came back from a bus stop. Turns out, i happened to bump into a person that wanted to feel her sensations. No, sorry, not to feel her sensations – but to made to feel her sensations. Wanted to be forced to feel, forced to sense, to be unable to stop herself from feeling the sensations. No, ton to be unable to stop – but more accurately, to be Made to feel unable.

Being unable to stop herself, she argued, that was the power of art. That, indeed, was/is art for her.

Isn’t there a cultivation of violence there? I asked.


Yes. In a way, another manner of saying what you’ve just expressed is that you fancy being forced to experience stuff. Being forced entails violence of some kind, no? If this is the kind of art, or the kind of stuff that a person calls – art – then perhaps its fair to say they fancy cultivating violence?

(we began the chat by me asking her re sensations from Roundness..)

..But, she said, I do NOT feel any sensations of roundness just by you saying, “roundness sensations”…

Sure, glad to hear that!


..because its honest. 🙂

But, she said, you are not doing art because I Can Not Sense roundness.



Am now confused, I began my own honest line, you just said that you could sense roundness if, I suppose, I asked you to sense with a finger the shape of a ball, or an egg.. Right.

I can not sense roundness from you saying Roundness.

True. However, 1. can you imagine others being able to sense? and 2. even though you can not sense, once we have roundness as an abstreact, we can combine it with, for example, sense of paprika and legitimity into a new sensation – round-paprika-legitimity..

HUH???!!! But I do not feel these too..

Sure. However, since these are abstracts, now it might give an idea for someone to formalise that new sensation in a play, or as some music, or sculpture, or some code, etc.. No..?

TBC.. Bus has arrived.. 😉

the violence of storms and a welcome dirt?

Over the brexit referendum, the rulling classes seem to be in a bit of an inbred fight. Questions such as why we actually rather place hopes and inspiration into the eu, has been replaced with negativity and fear.
The eu is crap – but we need it.
The eu is crap but we don’t need it.
At the end of such a sequence, we get a sense of crap and that is all.

However,, I think that for the long run, this storm can be used for advancing democracy and adding pressure onto capitalism.
Thatcher rather famously remarked once that when people lose an argument, they go for personal attacks. However, is it not slightly different, when we find arguments and argumentations insufficient, wrong or otherwise, then we go for violence? We go for attacking, personal or just threats. A parent that is unable to convince a child to do something might use a threat of violence to get the child into a particular action. No?

Check this threat: if you guys brexit, i’ll tax the living shit outa you!

So, is it not a fab example for how we have a deficient democracy? Yes, have a referendum, but you guys better take the option as we, the ruling classes, please.

“..tack the option”? Not choose?

Yes.. Is it not the idea of choosing, choice, that it does not entail retribution? Might be a wrong choice and it comes with its own deficiencies. Eat burgers for a year, and your body might look suitably greasy. However, if I punished you for eating the wrong food, then the whole dynamics have altered. We don’t talk of choice, but of options to take. No? Perhaps the term “option” is wrong, however, the idea here is that in a democratic process, we do not have retribution as part of the system. Right?

Well.. Is it not kind of superficial? Options, choices.. WTF! As long as we stay in europe, all is cool.

Well. It is important and cool if we stay in eu indeed. However, Democracy is the framework, no? Should we undermine, or expand it?
Moreover, check the arguments “against” eu – the pro brexit – if society does not listen, who might gain out of people linking immigration with them feeling a bit un-safe financially? So say we brexit, who will gain by squeezing people even more? How will that violence help deliver society out of situations like: ???

a joke or the laugh is on


suspect the meaning of brexit’s bring democracy back to uk is a code for more power for rich and aristocratic few?

check this screenshot:
murdoch and power - brexit's bring democracy back to uk

(Murdoch is saying: hey, in downing street – i am the boss. in europe, am a nobody..)

Am I wrong? Am I noting stuff that am looking for? My own reflection? Maybe…
How else can such a statement be interpreted?
A Joke? Said in a jest?

Perhaps… But couple that with a distinct lack of suggestions to extend accountability, transparency, democratic rights and further equality – elements they claim are arrested by eu – then maybe its not a joke?

A conjuncture?
I might be guilty at that too. However, when we look at the majority of brexiters pushers politics, when was the national capitalistic branch of political activities doing stuff to promote any democratic elements?
When its concerned with business practices. When its to do with the economy.
…or to stop people having free movement, abortion, etc..?
Yes.. ok.. and the point?

The point is, I think, that having a say as a code for access to power for the few, seems less of a conjuncture, no?