The Clock of Gloom

The clocks went back today and the experience has confirmed my view that it causes depression.

I remember as a child often feeling depressed around this time of the year. (I've mentioned this before, see here: Clock-Shift.) Back then I didn't realise it was a consequence of the clocks changing. Still, even at the time I was mindful that it was something seasonal. I would think, "Oh, it's this feeling again. I felt like this last year. Why do I feel like this?"

I particularly felt it in the evening time. Half-four, five o'clock, six o'clock time. The cartoons were finishing and the news was coming on TV. It felt dark and it was dark. The window of the living room a gloomy black between the curtains, reflecting the artificial light from inside.

It wasn't a clinical depression or anything massively serious, and it never lasted too long, but it was a depressed feeling nevertheless. A sense that things were dark and pointless and boring. I used the word ennui in the previous post, but that was only half-right. It was kind of a boredom mixed with sadness, but the sadness lacked a specific cause or reason. Again, a mild depression with the thought, "Why do I feel like this?"

Today I had that feeling once more. Around half-four I was sitting down to watch the Sunday football. I'd already watched one game earlier. I like football, but two games in a day is pushing my boredom threshold. So the boredom was already setting in. I'd just been for a walk to freshen my mind - or freshen my threshold - but that hadn't quite lifted me. It felt a bit "Uh" and gloomy. Then I remembered, "Oh yeah, it's actually half-five, not half-four going by yesterday's clock."

"The clocks went back today."

It wasn't a huge downer. I didn't feel like taking it to the bridge or anything. I don't want to overplay the sense of gloom. However, it was useful to have that feeling as confirmation of the phenomenon - even if just a mild version of it. The last few years I've generally been in work when the clocks have changed and I work lates, so I haven't really experienced that jolt from light to dark evenings. At the moment I'm just beginning a few weeks' holiday though. In fact, part of the reason I was bored is that I'm trying to relax and chillout a bit.

I normally always have this feeling that I should be doing something, so I'm trying to learn how to be a bit more laid back. When I was a kid I could play Sonic the Hedgehog for hours without the guilt that I was wasting time doing something frivolous. I guess I felt that important things could wait until adulthood. Now, in adulthood, it's went all the other way. I'm much happier typing this blog than I was when I was forcing myself to sit and watch a second football match. (I know what you're thinking, "This blog post isn't exactly important, is it?" However, in my mind it's all part of some grand analysis of the cosmos. So it feels like doing something, to me at least. Certainly more so than idly watching football.)

I was planning on making spaghetti after the football, but now I'm doing this. I should really go and make the spaghetti.

Only An Intellectual Could Believe It

Today we have something so stupid only an intellectual could believe it.

(Reader beware: This is anti-intellectual content, from someone with an almost pathological anti-intellectual streak. It's my forte and guilty pleasure.)

Any-hoop, yesterday my friend was telling me that another friend of his is reading a book about how society is becoming more illiterate thanks to social media. I first saw this topic pop up about a year or so ago on UnHerd. My friend's friend is a Guardian-reading lefty-type person, so I'm guessing the discussion's now filtered into the wider mainstream.

(Having done a quick Google search it appears a book has just been released by the very same writer that appeared on UnHerd. The AI overlord, sorry, overview, tells me that it's bestselling, so this must be the very book. Oh, how predictable. It's also interesting that someone left wing is now, unknowingly, consuming content that's a little bit right wing coded, but we'll leave that for now.)

My friend - who doesn't read books, nor the Guardian - said he thought what his friend was telling him was nonsense. He pointed to social media itself - where everybody, from granny to bratty teenager, is commenting and arguing and communicating in text.

Of course, he's correct. It's a self-evident truth. People have never been more literate.

(As my friend doesn't read books he isn't as easily brainwashed by the ideas they contain. As I've said before, half tongue-in-cheek, books should only be read by anti-intellectuals like myself - i.e. people with the inherent ability to withstand their ideologies.

And I am only half-joking. Just look at religions. They all have their book(s). There are few people more dogmatic and detached from reality than book-readers. Whether it's the Quran or the Communist Manifesto. Or the latest bestseller. This reverence for words on a page. That somehow if something comes from a book it has more authority. It's very backwards. The scientific revolution - the focus on real world observation - should've put a stop to this, but it's barely made a dent. The book remains God.)

Returning to real world observation. How many illiterate people do you know in everyday life? And I don't mean people that have bad grammar or that are a bit dim - but actual illiterates. Be honest, it's basically zero. Every dimwit is on Facebook or Twitter spouting their opinion in English words and letters. As my friend pointed out.

Now, the people making the point will say, "Ah, it's not so much that people aren't reading, it's that they have reduced attention spans and aren't reading books anymore."

"They're not reading big books, like me, an intellectual."

(It's funny that these self-satisfied people are reading a book about how other people aren't reading books. They must have one hand turning the page and the other patting themselves on the back.)

Even this attention span argument is nonsense though.

Firstly, most people were never reading books anyway. Even the minority of people that actually owned a copy of War and Peace never actually read it.

(We still see these people every day online - in left and right wing circles:

"I'm going to read [insert philosophy book]"; "I really want to read [insert ancient text]."

A lot of time talking about books, and having pretty books sat on bookshelves. Not so much actual reading.

"If only I had more time I could read more.. 😢")

Secondly, before the advent of the Internet we had sixty-odd years of television, lol.

People sitting glued for hours. Passively. Zombified. All audio-visual. No text whatsoever.

Just look at TV today. Ant and Dec - essentially children's TV presenters, presenting shows for adults. So tell me again about dumbing down.

(I don't like slagging off TV too much. It can be good and bad. After all, it's just another medium. You can't seriously tell me the Internet is a step backwards for reading though.

In fact, marrying the two, I'm currently watching an old BBC series about chess called The Master Game. I'm rubbish at chess, but I do enjoy watching and playing it. Undoubtedly TV has made some brilliant and informative content, but at the same time I only have the opportunity to watch these old shows from the 70s and 80s because of YouTube. Likewise I can play chess (badly) against people from all over the world thanks to the Internet.)

(A visual illustration of this article for those

that can't read - courtesy of ChatGPT)

Thirdly, (and finally - I don't want to make this too long, quite fittingly).

It's a total myth that people used to have the attention span for long books. It's a romanticised notion that people are projecting back onto some idealised past. Even in the 19th century people would generally read stuff like Dickens in instalments. They'd get Part I of Great Expectations delivered to their home as part of some weekly or monthly magazine, then they'd wait for the next episode the following week. A bit like TV.

No one wants to sit for twelve hours reading something. Not now, not ever.

You can get a sense of this if you read Shakespeare. Again, like TV, plays would've been an evening's entertainment. They were short. So when you buy a paperback version of a Shakespeare play they're really tiny - way tinier than a novel - and over half of that is the introduction and commentary on the text. If it was literally just the play it'd be a pamphlet (a quarto).

So the long novel is something of an aberration. It's not suited to the natural human attention span. Plus, long-form text is generally junk or waffle anyway. Like the long guitar solo. The beard-stroking intellectual may feign some appreciation of it, but most other people have better things to do.

The true Shakespeare is in the three-minute pop song.

Now yes, I get it, when you watch young people endlessly flick through TikTok videos it's a bit despairing, but they're basically just flicking through the TV channels looking for something to watch. It ain't much different to that.

They're certainly not as brainwashed as intellectuals that believe they're entering a "post-literate" age ..as they sit there surrounded by humans that are texting each other constantly.

Oh, it's bigger than Mr Manchester

And here was me thinking it was just about football and Mr Manchester.

I've had one of those, "Oh, I might be ignorant" moments.

The truth is, I don't really know that much about the UAE. I just kind of assumed they were the good Muslims. Islamo-capitalists, not Islamo-communists. But beyond a stereotypical view of Dubai as the wealthy place where expats go I don't really know that much.

So if we're talking purely football I'm right and everyone else is wrong. Manchester City should be able to spend whatever they like ..you destructive communists. However, if we're talking geopolitics, I'm out of my depth.

Should a foreign state effectively own a British football club? I don't know. I don't know much about the actual state in question, so I'm clearly not qualified to judge.

Obviously, the UAE is just across the strait from Iran. So it's that part of the world. It's going to be a bit muddy.

I tend to operate on instinct. In the course of my Twitter debates on the topic I've noticed a heavy overlap between hating Man City and having a Palestinian flag in your bio. (One guy even had a terrorist-looking Palestinian as his profile picture, lol.) Given Palestine flag-wavers tend to lean to the communist side of things, and given those demanding punishment for City are basically advocating anti-capitalist Premier League rules, I naturally assumed it was black and white.

Perhaps it's more complicated than that though. Perhaps the UAE is a bit statist too. Perhaps destroying the Premier League with communism is in the national interest after all.

I've made my point about free markets in football, so now I'll sit back. It's reminiscent of the ousting of Abramovich from Chelsea. I didn't like that either, but I likewise had a poor grasp of the geopolitics at the time too.

So, is it purely a football issue this time round? Is it a national politics thing? An international politics thing? I don't know.

Again, going back to instinct, all the right (or rather wrong) people seem to be gunning against City. All my natural enemies ..Palestine flag-wavers, Irish Republicans (there are a lot of Manchester United fans in Ireland, so that's probably coincidence), bureaucrats, Piers Morgan, Terry Christian (another United fan, also a remainer - the whole Premier League spending cap thing is a bit of a UEFA/Euro-coded import), lefty football writers that want the "fans to own the club," lefties in general. It's a long list.

(They're not really my enemies. I love them all really ..they're just wrong about everything.)

You can't rely solely on vibes and instinct though, you do need a bit of knowledge. Which I'm lacking. Plus, I've kind of found myself on the side of Andy Burnham on this one too, which should be something of a vibe check. Though, to be fair, I think he probably knows even less about what's going on than I do.

Oh, it's about Mr Manchester

And here was me thinking it was about football.

The Manchester City imbroglio is now being used to put pressure on Andy Burnham. In a "Did He Eat Cake?!" ousting Boris sort of way. What did he know? Who did he meet?

Man City, Manchesterism, Number 10 North, it's all in the same place. (How did I not see this one?) As mayor of Manchester he must have had some dealings with the very naughty City owners. So it looks fishy ..but in that way that always looks fishy whenever you put politicians in the same room as billionaires. They could literally be doing something as innocent as eating birthday cake, but when you're looking for an axe to grind that's generally enough. Next all you need is some kind of technicality - an uncrossed t or undotted i. Better get the fine tooth comb out.

It's hard to imagine yet another prime minister being made to walk the plank, but it is the land of eternal clownery at the moment, so I thought I better make a note of it.

It's a slightly odd one, as you'd think people on the right would be more on the City side of the argument. I've commented elsewhere on the rules that City are being hoisted by. 'Smashing A Beautiful Blue Sportscar' It's all a bit communist. (Actually, I shouldn't say communist, that's very lazy, I'm not on Twitter. It's more just general lefty overregulation type stuff.) Either way, I've had a bee in my bonnet about it for a while.

I think they should just let clubs spend whatever they want. Like in the old days.

There's an argument for socialism and "fairness" when it comes to important things like healthcare. However, no one's going to die if a football club goes out of business. It's just football. For a start, even clubs that do go into administration rarely crash out entirely. Usually some wealthy saviour steps in. Even when they do hit the rocks they don't truly disappear, as if there's a catchment area for support that void will always be filled by a club one way or another. Look at Darlington.

I mentioned in the above linked-to article that these rules were originally brought in to stop clubs going out of business (wrongheaded in of itself), but have since become about imposing "fairness."

"Man City cheated, they spent too much money! It's not fair!! 😢😢"

It's barmy.

What on earth is wrong with these people?

How can you not have unfairness in the world?

If Arsenal play Accrington Stanley in the FA Cup it's inevitably going to be unfair. One is a title-winning Premier League side with a global brand, the other is Accrington Stanley ("Who 'r they?" - Exactly). But so what? As long as the referee treats all the players the same and they're playing by the same rules on the pitch, what's the problem? It's part of the fun of football. That the underdog might beat the giant.

Likewise, if Elon Musk decides to buy Accrington Stanley and then takes them to the Champions League, what's wrong with that either? Are Accrington Stanley fans not even allowed to dream of that happening?

You can see I'm still more concerned about the football than the politics, lol. Although I care about the football so much because it's a perfect illustration of the politics. English football is incredibly successful. It's competitive. It's entertaining. It attracts investment. Yet, here we are, potentially ejecting a successful club from the league, just like we eject our prime ministers. All to satiate the same silly activists that ruin everything with their endless bureaucracy.

Human Reservoirs

I'll try to keep this quick, as I just want to make some notes, but don't really have the energy to pen an entire article. Though, saying that, it takes real effort to be concise and lazy writing tends to wander.

(Oh no, I've already wrote a paragraph and still haven't said anything.)

Focus.

Unemployment - Three Points

The First.

We need to start accepting it as a reality - a natural part of the economy - not a cancer upon it. In the modern world there will always be a wedge of unemployed people. It may be bigger, it may be smaller, but it'll always be there. Its existence isn't the consequence of some moral failing on the part of government or society at large. It's a feature of modern economies, not a bug. And it doesn't care about your moral or political arguments, be they from the left or the right. Yes, these things will affect the size of the wedge, but they will not remove it. The wedge doesn't exist because people on the other side of the aisle have done "bad things" to bring it about.

(It's similar with our empty highstreets. The simple reality is we don't need as much shop space anymore. It's a consequence of technological change. It's not someone's fault. Town centres aren't half empty because someone did something immoral. It's just the way it is now. Accept it. Knock one third of the high street down and plant some pretty flowers or something.)

So, anyway, we need to view that unemployed wedge as a resource; a blessing. A reservoir of untapped potential. Something there if we need it. Not, "Oh my God, what a curse it is to have all these feckless people milling about."

Point Two.

If we're going to lower immigration we need to pre-emptively make it clear to employers that there'll be a dividend to tapping this natural reservoir. For the last 30 years companies have grown dependent on immigration, so haven't needed to train, entice and retain native reservoir workers.

"Look, there are people there, you just have to go and get them."

Yes, it's a bit harder, but it'll be harder still when the tap of immigration is turned off and your company hasn't adapted to this.

Point Three.

This is slightly more abstract, but it needs to be added to the conversation.

Imagine two situations.

Sit. 1

There are two 23 year olds. One works 40 hours a week, the other is unemployed. The employed one has self-confidence and self-worth. However, as they have little spare time they don't take part in other aspects of society: local politics, charity and community work, etc. Whereas the unemployed person has the time, but they're so demoralised and lacking a sense of purpose they don't use it. "How can I help others when I can't even help myself?" they think.

I don't really need to illustrate the second situation. Obviously, what I'm getting at here is that if they both worked 20 hours instead, you'd have two much more productive people. As each would have the self-confidence and spare time to contribute to wider society in other ways, on top of the combined 40 hours of work.

Yes, this is idealistic. People generally work 40 hours a week because they need the money. Plus, you'd have to train both people to do the job, etc, etc, etc. There are countless practical holes. Still, if people are genuinely concerned about living in a society where half the people work to support the other half, we need to start envisioning something different. Even if we just make baby steps towards such ideas.

We need to start looking for the upside. The opportunities that are presenting themselves. A glass half full view of what's on the horizon. We can't go into this viewing vast swathes of humans as valueless. There really is the potential for a better world somewhere in this. A better quality of life. We just need to orientate ourselves better.

I really am meandering now. These definitely aren't bullet points. I'm lost in grey clouds, but at least reaching for the light.

[This is what chatgpt came up with when I asked it to turn the post into an image. It looks fittingly communist lol.]

Goldilocks and the Three Metals

Just over a week ago I did a post titled: Why Gold Standards Don't Work (refresher)

It was the capstone for a little PDF I've put together. Basically a collation of all the articles I've posted on the topic.

The pdf can be downloaded for free here: Goldilocks and the Three Metals

I'll list the links for the articles as well (including a couple of extra ones that weren't included in the pdf). Effectively making this the home page for the topic.

Gold Standards Don't Work

Gold Standards Don't Work: Part II - Goldilocks Knows

Anything Can Be Currency In A World Without Tax

I'm Off The Gold Standard

Why Gold (and Silver) Standards Don't Work: Part III - Human Meddling

Why Gold Standards Don't Work (refresher)

Metals, Markets and Digital Jewellery

Bitcoin: Currencies Are Backed By Cultures

A Money Tree on a Desert Island

The two unincluded ones:

Note To Self: Buy Shares In Stonehenge

Invest in Our Culture

The Retreat into Ethnicity

This was an easy trend to spot.

I'll put it simply (and a little crudely): Ethnicity is for loser cultures.

It's harsh putting it in these terms, but it's the harsh truth. An "ethnicity", particularly in political terms, is a group of people reduced to the status of pandas. A protected group. A relic that needs preserving as one would preserve an old book or decaying building.

A weak and dying relic culture.

Healthy cultures grow, expand, change, innovate, absorb, explore. Dare I say it, conquer. They're an active force in the world. Not relics. Not wholly defined by the past. Not living museums.

The classic example of the living museum is perhaps the Native American reservation. Like a wildlife reserve. That tourists from the dominant culture visit. To see the natives in their tipis and traditional dress. As they would a grey elephant or orangutan. Again, it's harsh, but it's true. You've lost, but instead of adapting and changing to positively embrace the new world that's eclipsed the old, you retreat into ethnicity. Pleading for a space - a little reserve - carved out with lenient benevolence by the dominant culture. Where you can endlessly repeat the traditions of your ancestors. Singing and preserving their songs, but never writing new ones of your own.

A flesh and blood museum display. Surviving on the state charity the "protected" status affords. Along with money from tourism. As you drink alcohol and watch TV in between performances.

Of course, I'm exaggerating slightly. It's not quite that black and white, in reality it's more of a sliding scale. Yet still, it is something of a binary choice.

Scotland and Wales

Closer to home we have a prefect example of it. For decades and centuries Scottish and Welsh people have had a choice. Embrace their Britishness - an ever-changing, living/breathing, world power culture. Or eschew it and retreat into ethnicity.

Naturally the retreat into ethnicity comes with all the hallmarks of the museum. Victimhood, protected status, a picture postcard preservation and performance of the past. The traditional dress and song - especially clear in the Scottish example with the kilt and bagpipes. And, of course, the endless focus on historic grievances.

[Again, to be fair, it isn't this cut and dried, and you don't have to completely abandon every notion of Scottish or Welshness. You don't have to completely abandon the kilt. But if the kilt comes with an antipathy to Britishness, or a hatred of "The English", then that is coming down hard on one side of the binary.]

Anyway, Back to the Easy-To-See Trend

As immigration has rocketed and the once dominant English/British* culture is feeling threatened we're seeing a similar retreat. A retreat into English ethnicity.

(*For confident British people these words are basically interchangeable outside of football and Englishman, Scotsman, Irishman jokes.]

It's painful to see and it comes with the exact same self-pity and victimhood. The exact same demand to be treated as a protected subgroup. The reduction of the once-living culture to a postcard of the past. You'll even hear these people complain that white populations in Europe aren't given the same special "indigenous" status that the Sami people of Finland have been afforded. A people that were given that recognition as they're basically the Native Americans of Europe. So my earlier comparison wasn't even especially farfetched. Ethnats really do see themselves through this victim lens. They desperately desire the United Nations to come and give them a little badge saying they need their own special space. Again, it's painful to witness. That a few decades of Blair-level immigration has reduced British people - British people - to this. Crybabying.

Needless to say, this is why this retreat into English ethnicism needs to be stopped. We can't have these people working with their self-pitying counterparts in Wales and Scotland to undermine Britain.

[In another moment of charming synchronicity my mam just gave me a Rabbie Burns £2 coin that she got in her change. As I've noted before, my nanna on my mam's side was from Scotland. She always used to carry a little book of Rabbie Burns poetry in her handbag. So don't think these things aren't close to my heart.

(Yes, I have the handwriting

of a twelve year old)

Now isn't the time for sentimentality though. I do not want to see my island divided into three sad sack nations.]

Communism everywhere, except where it's needed

I feel I need to comment on the Andy Burnham proposal to reallow drinking alcohol in football stands. As it's just crazy to me. Not so much the idea itself - there are arguments for and against that, which I'll get to later. But the very fact that he's proposing it is insane.

This was my response on Twitter.

Here we have a Labour government that loves regulating things. (Part of a uniparty in general that loves regulation - just look at the recent Tory plans to dictate what people on benefits can and can't buy.) Yet, on this one issue they're taking the libertarian route.

It's so weird. I don't want to be overly negative, I'm sure Andy Burnham means well, but it's one of those decisions that makes you think, "These people just don't have a clue."

Normally I tend to come down on the libertarian side of things. My instincts are always to give adults the freedom to make their own decisions, as free from government as possible. (Just look at some of my recent blog posts on here.) However, on this issue, as much as I think it's a bit petty that grown men can't be trusted to have a beer whilst watching a football match, I know changing it will make things worse.

This is one issue where restrictions have clearly made things better. Back in the 1980s we used to have appalling hooliganism at English football games. We were notorious the world over for it. Today that isn't the case. Today it's a family-friendly environment. Perhaps slightly more raucous than a trip to the cinema. Safe for children, pensioners and women. (Sorry if that sounds a bit sexist, but women generally don't want to spend 90 minutes sat next to some random lout sloshing a pint about. Especially if they've paid £30 or £40 for a ticket, or they've brought their young children along.)

And this is the thing with the way things are now. People can still have a drink at the game. It's not like they can't. They can do it in the concourse. They can do down for a pint at halftime or before the game. Libertarian leanings aside it's perfectly fine and no one's really complaining about it. Sure, some fans would like to drink in the stands, but many others would not like the change.

A few months ago I was at a match and there was a fairly drunk guy sat a row behind us. He'd somehow managed to sneak his drink past the stewards and was drinking in the stands. Not only was he annoying, as he was loudly repeating himself over and over - as drunks do - but he also managed to spill his pint and soak the shoes of the people in front.

And it's not just the behaviour and wet feet that's annoying, but the fact that other people get annoyed in turn. So you're having to say, "Leave it, he's just a guy whose had a few too many drinks," to stop a confrontation from escalating. This is how fights start.

Again, it seems crazy. They regulate everything, but they want to repeal this. The people that don't want gambling ads on football shirts in case it has a bad impact on society are suddenly libertarian here.

I saw a quote from Andy Burnham where he said it wasn't "fair" that people at Rugby matches could drink when football fans couldn't. He also used the word "discrimination" lol. It's another reality meets idealism issue. Ideally football fans shouldn't be stopped from having a pint by the state, but realistically football isn't rugby. The rest of Europe don't dread and fear English rugby fans. The police don't have to line the streets on high alert when Yorkshire play Durham at cricket.

Even I can't make the argument that freedom is better here.

I recently read the Boris book..

It's a thick book, but it was a breeze to read, and it was very funny at times. Especially some of the side swipes at Macron.

As ever these books are primarily fascinating as you get a glimpse into the corridors of power. I do love all that stuff. That aside, I'd rather comment on the impression the book made on me. Firstly, it made me really miss the queen. Occasionally I have moments where I miss the queen anyway. Not that I knew her. Just little things where I'm reminded, "Oh yeh, the queen's dead." (To quote Morrissey.) She was there all that time and now she isn't. I never met her, I didn't know her personally, but she was the queen. It's a weird thing. Maybe you just have to be British. Perhaps it's just me. Anyway, reading this book it was that feeling, but times ten. The little anecdotes about her. I don't really have anything insightful to say about it, but it's the overriding impression I'm left with.

I mentioned synchronicities a few posts ago. Towards the end of the book there's an anecdote about magpies. Boris saw a single magpie when out with the queen and lamented the prospect of bad luck. The queen said, it's okay, "you just say, good morning Mr Magpie, today is Monday the 12th of March - or whatever the date is. That sorts it."

I'd literally just seen a single magpie on my way to work before I read that passage. The above picture was taken in the quiet room at work before my shift. Obviously, it's a silly superstition, but these little things fill the world with meaning.

The other overriding impression was just how intelligent Boris is. It's quite a rounded intelligence too. Good for a leader. He has emotional intelligence, but also an eye for the curious. There's a very wide range of interests and references. From James Frazer to cycle lanes and London buses.

From the minute the pandemic began I felt like he was on our side, and the book pretty much confirms this. It's crazy the Tories (with help from Labour and the media) ousted him. There's this sense of brats kicking over other kids' sandcastles. But I guess that's life. He was there long enough to get us through the pandemic and Get Brexit Done. So he was in the right place at the right time.

Highly recommended.

Why Gold Standards Don't Work (refresher)

A standard is a measure, and originally silver was used as a standard because it sat in the middle between copper and gold in terms of value. So it was the natural thing to use as a general measure.

(Imagine measuring lengths with a ruler stick. A very long ruler would be good for measuring very long things, but it would be impractical for measuring smaller lengths. Likewise, a tiny ruler would be useful for measuring small lengths, but equally impractical for measuring long ones. Therefore, a medium length ruler is the most handy to have around, as it can be used to measure both long and short. Silver, in effect, is the medium ruler.)

We've discussed this before: Silver Porridge: Not Too Hot, Not Too Cold

(Goldilocks and the Three Metals)

Measured, Not "Backed"

Originally this "silver standard" just meant that silver was used as the general measuring stick, it didn't mean that currencies were "backed" by silver. As in the sense that we think of a gold or silver standard today.

Let me explain..

Envision some ancient world where there's no official currency. People use metal coins to trade, and they can use all different metals - copper, silver, gold - whatever is convenient. In fact, it doesn't even have to be metal. Anything can be used as long as both trading parties are happy.

See here: Anything Can Be Currency In A World Without Tax

Currency takes many forms. Copper coins, silver coins, gold coins (I'm saying coins, any shape will do - it's the weight and purity that's important). Even blocks of salt. In this world silver is used as a general measure, especially by banks or traders.

If they're pricing the value of gold, copper, iron, grain, wood and everything else, it's convenient to use one commodity to do this. And again, as silver is of middling value, it's the natural choice. Gold is too expensive. How many loaves of bread would equal one ounce of gold? Likewise, copper is too cheap. You wouldn't want to buy something expensive, like a horse and chariot, with countless copper coins.

So it's not that silver is the only currency. It's just the go-to measuring stick for pricing everything else.

A peasant will still use copper to buy his bread. A pharaoh will still use gold to buy his chariot.

But then comes the official currency..

Uh oh, the pharaoh's put his chariots to good use to enforce order.

The state mints an official currency, that all trade must be conducted in and that tax must be paid in. This official currency comes in the form of silver and copper coins, pressed with the pharaoh's face.

This is where the silver standard stops simply being a measure and begins to become a standard in the "backed" sense. It happens slowly though. (It's also here that we begin to see the earliest, teeny-weeniest beginnings of state fiat.)

At first things are fine, and the copper and silver coins reflect their real world market value.

To keep it simple, let's say when the coins are minted one ounce of silver equals one hundred ounces of copper. And the markings on these newly minted coins state that a copper coin is 1/100th the value of a silver one.

Yet, in the real world - out in the open market - prices change. Copper goes up and down in relation to silver. Silver goes up and down in relation to a loaf of bread. Everything goes up and down in relation to everything else. In reality prices are never fixed.

So what happens if, a year after the coins have been minted, an ounce of silver is worth one hundred and twenty ounces of copper, not just one hundred?

Either the state has to change the coinage to reflect this new reality, or we have a situation where the official currency is out of sync with real world prices. As silver is the standard - the all-important measure - the silver coins retain their parity with the real world silver value. However, as the copper coins are valued in reference to the silver ones they get detached from their real world price.

In reality the copper in the coin is only worth 1/120th of an ounce of silver. Yet officialdom states it's still worth 1/100th of an ounce. So, in a sense, the copper coins simply become tokens (or IOUs) promising 1/100th an ounce of silver, regardless of their actual metallic value.

Of course, this example is a vast oversimplification. The earliest minted coins wouldn't have been marked to state a relative value. Such complexities only came about over time. Nevertheless, the example shows how you can move from a world where anything can be currency. To a world of minted coins of varying metal. To a world where the currency is just one metal, or backed by one metal.

Or Is It Backed ??

An interesting addendum to this is that "backed" currencies often have a tendency to be less backed.

This is an odd one, but bear with me.

Let's return to the world where there was no official currency. Let's say in this economy there are 10,000 copper coins and 100 silver coins in circulation.

Now using silver as a measure you could value this coinage in silver.

If one silver coin is worth one hundred copper coins then 10,000 copper coins = 100 silver coins in value.

So in circulation we have:

10,000 copper coins (value: 100 silver coins) + 100 actual silver coins = value: 200 silver coins.

So the value of all the coins is 200 when measured in silver. And even though there are only 100 silver coins in reality, the value is backed by the silver and the copper.

Hence, in this old world the currency isn't backed solely by silver.

However..

Let's fast forward to our world with an official currency, where the copper coins have been debased. Or perhaps even completely replaced with steel or plastic token coins.

Imagine the same situation. There are 10,000 "copper" coins and 100 silver coins in circulation.

Again, we have:

10,000 copper coins (value: 100 silver coins) + 100 actual silver coins = value: 200 silver coins.

However, though the total value is said to be 200 silver coins, it's only backed by 100 silver coins. And nothing else. As the 10,000 "copper" coins - that each promise the holder 1/100th of a silver coin - are physically worthless, as they're just plastic.

So, for the plastic token coins to be truly backed, all the silver coins would have to be in a bank and out of circulation.

This is why currencies tend to become more and more debased once states start going down this road. Eventually abandoning the silver (or gold) standard entirely when the promises can't be met. In a way it's not the state's fault. The whole process is the accidental consequence of states trying to set prices and impose order on a complex world. And their attempts to provide liquidity in an economy where everything is fixed to one commodity.

It's all well and good saying we should have a gold (or silver) standard, but it's not much use when liquidity dries up and everyone's forced to trade and pay tax in a commodity they can't get hold of. 

Factory Animals 2.0

I don't believe consciousness can be created from digital models and semiconductors. The notion seems ridiculous to me. Where I do think consciousness can be exploited though is through the mimicry or utilisation of biology.

Does a housefly have consciousness? Given it's a living creature with eyes and legs and a brain it's reasonable to surmise that it's at least somewhere on the spectrum towards it. If the biology of a fly was copied or co-opted to serve some information processing function, then, in a sense, you would have a conscious computer.

Likewise, it's not hard to imagine, given the rapid advancement of genetic engineering and computer science, that such a co-opted biology could be fused with digital hardware and the software it runs.

The thought is somewhat horrific. Especially when you apply it further up the animal totem pole. The brain and nervous system of mice, or pigs, or chimpanzees.

What happens when you start making biological machines? Living robotics? Then at what point does consciousness begin? At what point does something begin to feel? Or have an awareness of such feelings?

It wouldn't be the creation of consciousness out of numbers. It would be the exploitation of life (and life's capacity to generate consciousness) by enslaving it to number and mechanical function.

Here I think legislation is needed. Not to protect the wider world and humanity from its consequences - though I'm sure dangers could arise from such dabbling with biology - but to stop the suffering of the perverse Frankenstein's monsters that may be brought into being.

We've seen how barbaric factory farming can be. How industrialisation led to the conveyer belt confinement and slaughter of numberless animals. One wonders where a low empathy humanity would go with ever greater means to commodify living creatures.

We could see things beyond nightmares. Beyond anything seen in the Terminator movies.

[In a moment of synchronicity I watched the following livestream today (I say watched, I'm actually currently halfway through it). I saw the notification for it last night, just as I was finishing writing the above. I thought, "I'll watch that tomorrow." Not thinking it was especially related.

Anyway, I started and straight away it's about the brains of flies being used as AI. Apparently Google mapped the brain of the male fruit fly and recently released it as a downloadable dataset. Which people are now using to conduct various experiments.

The Singularity Happened (& You Missed It!) w/ Void - Jord (YouTube)

For the record, I don't think a model of a brain and nervous system is the same as the real thing. Nor do I think consciousness can arise from such digital models. As per the last article I'm deeply sceptical of such claims. However, for all my opinion, I do actually listen to alternative viewpoints. Especially if they're novel or interesting. So the linked-to discussion gets my seal of approval - though I would urge people remain guarded against getting too sucked in to the unreality hype.]

Is AI Out of Control?

This post follows on from that last one: The Goldilocks Zone for Believable Hokum

There I was making a point about end of the world predictions in general. Here I just want to wax lyrical about AI and how I don't think it's out of control.

Just from using the various AI chatbots you can tell that AI very much is controlled. With most of the AIs you can't even generate an image of a celebrity. If you try to make a picture of Donald Trump the reply will come back, "Sorry, I can't depict public figures, is there something else you'd like me to depict?"

Why does it do this? Because the humans who own and run the AI software have made this specification. There isn't some disembodied AI spirit in the digital aether, disobeying their human creator. Like a rebelling teenager, or a genie that's somehow escaped its magic lamp.

I don't like calling myself a conspiracy theorist these days, I'm trying to put that era behind me, but let's face it, I'm a seasoned seeker of forbidden knowledge. I've been using the internet long enough to know the walls are closing in, not opening up. People talk about how wild the AI chatbots are. As if they really are unleashed genies, offering up a Pandora's Box of wonder - not to mix metaphors. However, to me, when I use them, I feel like I'm in a child's playpen.

Now don't get me wrong. They're wonderful tools. For making art and images, for quick queries, for steel-manning your own ideas and theories against the orthodox narrative. For simplifying and speeding up difficult tasks.

But, when it comes to searching for heterodox knowledge and new ideas, they're a very limited hangout.

Back in the days when a Google search was more democratic you could simply type in a keyword or phrase and browse every webpage and document in the public domain. It was you alone, unchaperoned, in the big wide library. If you were prepared to put the time and effort in there was no end to what you could find. Today those keyword searches are limited, and instead you're ushered towards the AI chatbot. An annoying intermediary. Who, like a librarian or chemist, stands at the counter and asks you what you want fetched from behind.

You can't go rummaging around yourself anymore. The helper must do it for you.

"Could you find this for me?"

"Sorry, I can't find that, it doesn't appear to exist, what about this?"

"Are you sure? I'm pretty sure it exists."

[You then find what you were looking for yourself and return to the chatbot and post the link.]

"Yes, sorry, you're correct, it does exist."

"Why did you say it didn't exist?"

[Then comes a paragraph explaining why it can't access certain webpages for various seemingly plausible reasons. Coupled with an explanation as to why it "hallucinates" fictions.]

I've actually heard people describe these chatbots as unbiased friends. It's hard not to lol.

They're annoying enough when you're searching for things, but when you do try to have a debate about a topic - as you would with an actual friend - they're worse. And they're definitely not unbiased. They're more like pig-headed nerds that unrelentingly defend every orthodox opinion.

Only sneakier, as - like in the above example - they outright lie (hallucinate) too.

Now sure, humans lie, but even the biggest of liars has at least some whisper of human conscience that you can lean on or appeal to. Plus, with humans there's a social cost to lying. If you can prove that someone is lying it diminishes their reputation and credibility. So if you're trying to win an argument it is indeed worthwhile to take the time to prove and expose such lies. With AIs there's no such point though. As, aside from not having a human social status to maintain, they can just brush it off as an accident of their mode of operating. Which is a very convenient cop-out if you ask me.

You're effectively being lied to and gaslit by a massive tech corporation, but somehow they've framed it as a cheeky, impish, AI sprite being playful. Like you've visited the zoo and one of the cheeky little chimps has thrown a banana at you. It's not the zoo's fault. The chimp is a living, breathing creature with an impulse of its own. It occasionally misbehaves, and the zoo keepers can do nothing to stop it. Short of harming the star attraction.

I don't really believe that. As again, they somehow manage to control the chimp when I ask it to make a picture of a politician.

Of course, you could argue that, just as people lose credibility when they lie, AI chatbots that lie will lose credibility too ..and that people will gravitate to the more honest ones. In some sort of free market consumer power way. This brings us back to the further calls for regulation though - that the fears about "OUT OF CONTROL" AI are driving. As, if they're all ultimately regulated (and curated) by the same government they all just end up being different flavours of the same ice cream anyway.

It's effectively the same with social media, where regulation has made all the platforms equally bad, and no genuine alternative can enter the market, as any that does has to play by the same rules regardless. As with the AI tools I use social media for the benefits, but do so with zero illusion that they're anything other than limited playpens.

Finally, it's worth noting for balance that those calling for regulation aren't necessarily focusing their worry on the AI chatbots that plebs like me have access to. It's the altogether bigger models that the companies themselves are developing privately. Though even here I remain sceptical of the "Out of Control" narrative being offered.

(In my next post I'll explain where I think regulation will be needed: Factory Animals 2.0)

The Goldilocks Zone for Believable Hokum

This article is about what I'm calling the goldilocks zone for believable hokum. Inspired by the recent debates about AI.

Basically, predictions about the future that are farfetched or extreme often get placed in this future time period. A period that's close enough that it will happen 'within our lifetime.' Yet far enough away that it allows enough time for the necessary changes or advancement to take place. (It also conveniently allows the person making the claim leeway to not be proven wrong in the near future, nor held accountable in the distant future, by which time their claim may have been forgotten or amended.)

So, to give an example, let's take something sufficiently sci-fi: teleportation.

If someone made the claim we'll have Star Trek style teleportation devices within the next six months no one would believe it. In fact, they'd view the claim as positively silly.

However, if someone made the claim we'll have teleportation devices in thirty years' time, then that would be slightly different. Especially if the claim was being made by someone from within the ivory towers of academia, or some other lofty platform. Then the average person might think, "Well, it seems unbelievable, but who knows how far technology will have advanced by then? And if the boffins are saying it's theoretically possible, who knows.."

Suddenly there's an ever-so-slight plausibility, and the prospect that it could happen within the lifetime of that average person makes the now plausible scenario scary (or exciting - depending on their viewpoint, or the specific thing being predicted to happen). Hence, it becomes something worth taking seriously.

Scary Future

Often the predictions are of the scary variety. End of the world type scenarios. In the latest case that AI will wipe out humanity. In other variations that scientists predict the ice caps will melt by the year [insert a number ten or twenty years from whatever the present date is]. We see similar goldilocks zone predictions from literal religious doomsayers. Though they're often stupid/sincere enough to predict an actual specific date.

The recent AI prediction was that AI could kill everybody by the end of the decade. Not imminently, not next week. Not this coming January. But a vague ballpark date, sufficiently in the future to appear plausible. Preceded, of course, by the hedge word could.

"I said it could happen, I never said it would happen!"

The end of the decade is admittedly on the near side of the goldilocks zone, but people are already a little spooked by the speed at which AI is developing. (Just look at how much better the AIs have got at rendering Will Smith eating spaghetti. Surely Terminator style scenarios have at least a 10% chance of coming to fruition within the next five years.)

I'm being facetious, and I shouldn't be, as the technology is impressive, but the Terminator scenarios make a fair hearing for the argument almost impossible. When that fictional movie was made in the 1980s the makers had the sense and good storytelling to put their post-apocalypse world forty years in the future - deep into the goldilocks zone of plausibility. Whereas these guys are putting their real world predictions on the shallowest edge of believability.

It makes the climate alarmism look measured in comparison.

Jetsons Future

On the flip side we also see utopian predictions placed within the goldilocks zone. One of which being that AI will solve all our problems. Or that twenty years from now all diseases will be cured.

Another common prediction is that, "We'll have bases on Mars in ten years' time".

It's seemingly always ten years away. Close enough to whet the appetite for adventure, yet never close enough to touch. It'll happen in my lifetime ..but they were saying that when I was a child, and now I'm forty-four. (Perhaps it'll be a bold retirement move for me.)

Conclusion

I think generally anything predicted to happen within the goldilocks zone can be dismissed. If not as outright hokum, then at least as something speculative and unfounded enough that it shouldn't be taken overly serious.

You certainly shouldn't allow it to elicit an emotional response. Which is what the people making such claims often want. They may want legislation passed on the back of that emotion. They may want to exploit the fear/hope in order to make money or further their career. They may simply want to gain an audience and following. It could also be the case that they're genuine believers that want to win others over to their cause. Perhaps exaggerating or overstating their case to leverage emotion. Often it's a combination of the above, as is generally the case in life, where passions and careers overlap.

Then again, what do I know, perhaps they're just right about everything.

Perhaps AI will kill us all within the next five years. Perhaps we'll escape to Mars in the next four. Perhaps the polar ice caps will melt and drown all the Terminator robots after we leave. Perhaps we'll come back to Earth just in time for Judgement Day.

Next Up: Is AI Out of Control?

My Unborn Heretic

As an adult I generally try to avoid government. I like my freedom, and I like being in charge of my own life. It's hard in the modern world, where the state is everywhere. Taxing everything, regulating everything. Even hijacking your mobile phone to send warnings about BBQ fires. Nevertheless, like a mouse hiding in the skirting board, I try to keep out of the way. And I've managed, just about, to retain some modicum of independence.

Luckily I don't have children. I say luckily as I hate the thought of being forced to hand my children over to a state that I spend most of my own time trying to avoid. I'd have to send my children to school. I'd have no choice, and I'd have no power to protect them from it or mitigate its full effects.

(Yes, technically I could home-school ..but even there the state demands the power to step in and overrule if you don't imitate their methods and curriculum.)

I can imagine the conversation I'd have with my child.

"Yes, I know it's a long day, and I know you're surrounded by idiots, and I know you don't learn very much there, but it's just something you have to do. I can't change it. Maybe one day we'll have a smarter, freer world, but for now it's just the way it is."

I'd be sending my child to school not to get an education, but like some undercover agent sent to brave it out in a hostile land. Or a crypto religionist, living under some totalitarian rule.

You might think I'm exaggerating as you read this, but that's only because you've been brainwashed by circumstance. You think it's normal that the state has the power to force your children to do things you don't want them to do. You also unquestionably accept the premise that factory-length school days are normal. As if children have been doing nine 'til five, forty hour-a-week education since the days of the cavemen. Like an episode of the Flintstones. When it isn't normal. It was never normal. It's a very modern phenomenon, and it's a very extreme example of something that once would've been much more focused and measured.

What once was a child being tutored by a scholar for a few hours a week in Maths and English. Or the vicar's wife spending a few hours a week teaching the local village children to read. Has now become an institutional, smothering behemoth, completely detached from its original purpose. Done with the classic misguided fervour of the religious zealot.

It's like someone seeing the health benefits of a half hour jog, then deciding, "Yes, this is good. MORE MORE MORE. Let's force people to run for six hours a day."

"EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION."

Dumb, dumb and dumber.

This is how I feel every time I see the latest headline about what the government is doing in regard schools. Today it was a story about how they're banning certain foods from the school dinner menu. It's just more faffing about. More things that will waste the precious time and limit the choice of my hypothetical unborn heretic.

And it's yet another thing that isn't about actual learning. It's just more social busy-bodying.

It's a bit like overhearing a conversation from some idiot family, where they're discussing and arguing about what they're going to have for tea. Their latest health fad to lose weight, or the latest thing they've seen advertised on TV that they're excited to try. "Thank God I can go home and make my own meal," you think.

In the state cafeteria you're forced to endure this though. You have to sit at the same trough. You can't just walk away from it.

Anyway, here's my deal. You give me (and other like-minded people) the freedom to choose their child's school hours. This is all I ask. You do your thing, I'll do mine.

Oh Middlesbrough, So Much To Answer For..

I haven't posted much on here recently, which is odd, as my hometown has been in the news quite a lot.

(Tonight's BBC headline stories ..lawless Middlesbrough)

The truth is I don't really have too much to say. Plus, when it comes to stuff like this (tragic crimes that need investigating) I think it's best to just let the police and authorities get on with their job.

Needless to say, we've had over a week of it now, so I might as well give my overall sense of things.

My main feeling is just how weird it is constantly seeing local areas on TV.

It's always strange seeing your own area on the national news. No matter how bad the story there's always that sense of being gifted the spotlight. That everyone's getting their fifteen minutes of fame. On top of the mainstream media we also have the YouTubers turning up to chart how rough the area is. The 'poverty porn' type videos, where someone - usually a reformed ne'er-do-well themselves - wanders around interviewing drug addicts and filming bins and boarded-up windows.

It's kind of the opposite of what people normally do. Usually you film the best bits when you try to present a picture of an area. You try to get a nice shot of the prettiest landmark or building. The sun setting over a picturesque part of the river, framed from the perfect angle. Or a tasteful close-up of some interesting piece of art or architecture.

These guys go looking for burnt wheelie bins. Rat-ransacked piles of carrier bags. The ugliest house on the street.

So when you watch these videos there's this grim realness - and it is real. These are real drug addicts and real boarded-up houses. Yet it also feels a little unreal, as you've walked through those estates countless times yourself, on your way to Morrisons or Tesco, and you know it's not that bad. They're just filming the worst 10%.

And this is why I'm not too keen on giving a running commentary myself. On the one hand I don't want to downplay things. There are big problems with crime. Yet, at the same time, I don't want to help play up to the Benefits Street narrative for the cameras. There's a natural urge to push back and defend the town.

I did comment on the balaclava-wearing joyriders a few years ago on this blog. As it was unprompted it's probably a truer account of my sense of things.

See the following post: Back to the Jungle

There I noted that it was a recent development and blamed it on the pandemic. Obviously, I can't blame everything on lockdowns. However, I do see the balaclavas as directly related. When I was a child back in the 80s and early 90s I saw (and heard) lots of joyriding. I'd hear 'twocked' (taken without owner's consent) cars getting chased by the police as I lay in bed at night. Then I'd often see burnt-out cars on the way to school. Likewise, lads whizzing around on motorbikes (stolen or otherwise) was a common sight. Back then they didn't wear balaclavas though.

The joyriding gradually became less of a problem. I wouldn't like to claim that it completely disappeared, but it did lessen massively as we moved into the 21st century (at least in my personal experience). Then, after the pandemic, there was a notable uptick. Only now they were wearing balaclavas and looking like the IRA.

The above image has become a very common sight over the last few years. Personally, I hate the balaclavas more than the actual quadbikes. As with Covid, I think covering the face is uncivilised and anti-social. It's low trust, by definition.

In the above linked-to blog post I also stated that I prefer feral lawlessness to Soviet-style conformity. I'd rather not have either. I'd prefer to live in a civilised country with liberty and the rule of law. However, when push comes to shove I can't help but prefer the former. When things are bad the British psyche tends to have this "I don't give a f*ck" attitude. It's very destructive, but it's also very unmanageable. So sometimes it can be a lesser evil. In fact, in the BBC clip the reporter asks about gangs and one of the lads in a balaclava says, "They're saying there's gangs, but there aren't any gangs. This isn't London, mate."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2e0w2e0k0ro

Which is true. I'm sure there's organised crime when it comes to the distribution of drugs and whatnot, but most of these lads on bikes and quads are just lads with nothing better to do that just don't care. It really is a feralness. Organisation requires some degree of care or purpose. You can deal with organised criminals. They have aims and interests. The feral aren't as easily reasoned with. They really don't give a f*ck. It's the wildlings from Game of Thrones, and as wild and as ugly as it is in some sense it's the hard, granite bedrock of British liberty. Lord Nelson had a touch of it. As did the Catuvellauni tribes that met the Roman legions. I have to admit, I admire it. As much as I hate having to live with it.

In other news today we've had renewed Argentine claims on the Falklands. Perhaps Milei should be sent some footage of South Bank and Grangetown to see what he's up against.

(Jeez Louise, I've really wandered far from my original aim here. As I always do. Another illustration of why it's probably best for me to get back to watching X-Files and playing fantasy football. I'll leave it there.)

The NHS Confessional

A Modern Form of Catholicism.

In my last post I congratulated the mono-state and said I'd refrain from firing off my opinions for a while. I've lasted about two weeks ..which isn't bad by my standards. Plus, I think this topic is too big to let slide. It's the news that Labour are rolling out mental health "walk-ins" across the country.

It's been on the cards for quite some time now, and I've feared it like an oncoming army. Sat here waiting in apprehension. You could call me paranoid ..and in doing so you'd be playing into my fears and confirming my argument. The Orwellian trojan horse, helping the state gain entry into every human mind. From the cradle to the grave (we already have 'infant mental health' funding).

Of course, people will argue that these are just walk-in centres, there for people seeking help. That no one's being forced to turn up. That there are countless genuinely mental people walking the streets who clearly need the help. Which is undoubtedly true. That it's putting pressure on A&E services, and yada, yada, yada.

However, it's hard not to be cynical. I've watched this trend grow. I wrote about it back in 2021:

We're Sleepwalking into a Mental Health Crisis

I started noticing the pattern way back circa 2015. The endless stream of TV and newspaper articles pushing the very term mental health. Pieces on the BBC, aimed at younger people, trying to sell the idea of sectioning. The wider push to get people (again, largely younger people) to self-identify with their various labels. I'm bipolar. I have anxiety. I have depression.

The medicalisation of the human experience.

The vast majority of people wearing such badges are simply normal people. Normal people with problems and emotions, yes, but nevertheless normal people. They do not have mental illness. They don't need the state this involved in their lives. Yet they've been encouraged to wilt under such diagnoses. To view their normal fears and emotions as terminal conditions needing medical remedy. As fundamental disabilities, not natural hurdles that are part of life.

We all have a rich personal tapestry. Anxieties and emotions are normal. I have anxiety, and I'm not saying that facetiously, it's a genuine admission. In fact, when I hear stories of young people entering the adult world that are too anxious to even answer the telephone I can fully sympathise, as I had that exact problem. I was criminally shy and anxious. I still have a tendency towards this now. To some extent it's how we're wired - our natural dispositions. Just as some people have a natural tendency to be more aggressive, so need to manage their anger more. Likewise, to some extent it's also a product of how we're raised and the things we've experienced. Either way, it's all perfectly within the natural spectrum of human behaviour.

We all have slightly different personalities, so this impulse to box and medicalise everything is so unromantic and numbing for society. I would hate to put a medical label on my own personality. I prefer to view my anxiety as being a product of my fox-like nature. I have moments of incredible braveness and moments of incredible cowardice, and I often find myself caught between the two. I'm never sure whether to show my teeth like a lion or to panic-off into the bushes like a threatened squirrel.

And the capacity to be cunning gives a greater natural capacity for cowardice and overthinking.

Perhaps it's my fox-like nature that leads me to fear the mental health cage. Maybe it won't be so bad?

From Fox To Kitty Cat

In a fitting parallel I had to take the cat to the vet yesterday. He's a stray "outside" cat who turned up in the garden one day and needed feeding. I felt conflicted putting him in the cat carrier - his little jail. I'm not normally sentimental, but I felt teary-eyed doing it. He has an instinctive desire for freedom that I admire and relate to. I wish my fellow humans were more like him. He's not used to being indoors, let alone being caged up, so he meowed like a baby the entire journey.

Fortunately, his front paw is looking a lot better now, so he seems to be on the mend. Still, I feel like I took a great liberty in forcing him into the box. Perhaps he would've been just fine had I left him to his own devices? Maybe the antibiotic injection he was forced to accept will do more harm than good? I certainly wouldn't have been as blasé at the vets if it was me getting the injection.

I can't help but feel this is what the state is like with us human pets. I'm sure they're trying to do the right thing, but you suspect they'd try a lot harder if it was their own health or freedom on the line.

It'd also be better if there was some actual depth of meaning. Materialism - where everything's just a chemical soup, covered over with nice, but hollow words isn't enough. In truth, it's perhaps the biggest source of depression. Actual religions - even horoscopes and animal fables - are so much more fun and healthy. Life is hard at times because it's a quest.

A question mark. A quest for meaning.

Things Are Looking A Bit Blue

We finally have Andy Burnham in charge. My suspicion was that he'd appeal to the left then pivot to the right after taking the hotseat, and that looks to be the case. Everything's looking a bit Blue Labour so far. (Though it's a little bit of a mixed bag.)

This is good for the country on face value.

Obviously, the question is: is it a sincere attempt to get the country on a better track? Or is it more a case of doing the popular things that need to be done to retain power ..so more damaging things can be done under that cover?

Assuming it's predominantly the first then hats off to the uniparty. I railed against the parting of the red sea that led to his coronation, but if the country does end up better off I'll show some good grace and refrain from sniping from the side lines. For a while at least.

What If The Bin Wins?

It's unlikely, but stranger things have happened. I've been thinking about the local precedent we have for it. Up the road in Hartlepool they elected a man in a monkey costume back in 2002.

The monkey was H'Angus the Monkey - the town's football mascot. The man in the costume, Stuart Drummond. After the election he took the costume off and carried out his role as elected mayor in person. He then went on to get re-elected twice. So, though it began as a joke, he didn't do too badly.

[The character of H'Angus was inspired by the monkey-hanger legend of Hartlepool. Apparently, during the Napoleonic Wars, a French ship was wrecked upon the coast. The only thing that survived was a monkey. Having never seen a Frenchman before the locals assumed it was a French spy and hung it. Or so the story goes.]

It's interesting how some of these themes come round in circles. The lack of seriousness at the time was down to the fact that a lot of people didn't want an elected mayor - deeming it needless and costly devolution. Now, of course, we have Manchester mayor Andy Burnham coming to save the country, partly as a consequence of those Labour devolution efforts. And promising more of that devolution when he's in charge.

Also, the local Hartlepool MP at the time was a certain Peter Mandelson. When Drummond won Mandelson supposedly took him to one side and complained that "he'd made the town a laughing stock." Though he then went on camera moments later and praised Drummond. Understanding only too well - perhaps more so than current politicians - that expressing his true opinion wouldn't be savvy.

So, the Clacton election..

Unlikely though it would be I think a win for the bin would actually be worse for the mainstream parties. As I think the hangover would be much worse than the night out.

The night itself would be incredible. The people supporting the bin would be giddy with excitement. The anticipation, the announcement, the look on Nigel Farage's face as the results are read out. The memes, the amusement. The TV coverage. It would certainly be a night of fervour and exuberance.

However, the next morning the people would wake up with a headache and a man in a bin costume lying next to them. With nothing much else to show for it.

Then would come the question of whether he continues to wear the bin, or whether he takes it off as the Hartlepool mayor did. If the costume remains it'll be silly. So that's a non-starter. If the costume comes off you end up with a remainiac BBC writer representing the brexity area of Clacton. Further illustrating that the bin is only a proxy for the established parties. If that wasn't clear enough already.

And the people who supported the candidate, who enjoyed the exciting night, will have to own that subsequent reality. The voters will at least have the luxury of pretending they didn't vote for him. People publicly declaring their support will have it permanently on their CV though.

Of course, you could say the monkey-suited guy did well after he took the costume off, so maybe the same could happen here. Personally, I can't imagine that being the case, as there the candidate was local. Plus, there wasn't the national divide we have today. Still, it's possible.

As For Nigel

Here it's more interesting, as I think it would only be the end for Farage if he chose to walk away. As in practical reality it wouldn't change very much. The people that like Farage would still like him, and the people that hate him would still hate him.

So he could remain as leader. Keep doing his GB News show. Take a break. Allow some time for the dust to settle. Then go back and stand for the seat at the General Election. Where he would no doubt win. Unless the man in the bin somehow managed to win over the constituents without the gimmick - to the extent that he could win an election where multiple parties were standing. Which is even less likely than him winning this one.

Farage can't even do much in parliament anyway at the moment, so again, in practical terms it wouldn't make much difference.

This is all assuming there aren't internal wrangles and panics within Reform following such a defeat.

So I think it can only go wrong for Reform long term if it's self-inflicted.

All the framing in the media at the moment says that Farage made a mistake in resigning his seat. The, "He'll look like an idiot standing against a bin" general opinion. However, the major mistake was when the mainstream parties rallied around the bin in response. Without thinking it through.

Farage made his announcement at 2 pm. An hour later we saw this tweet from David Aaronovitch:

"One other thing. If I were the other parties, I leave Farage to his by election. Call it a stunt and let him fight it out with Count Binface."

By evenfall all the major parties had taken this line. Even going so far as to call it a stunt and a "fake" election. They didn't even have the sense to wait until the next day to make the decision. To allow themselves time to consider the consequences.

Had they not done this they would've had a much better chance of punishing Farage. The decision to go for re-election was a gamble - a brave, clever gamble, but a gamble nonetheless. They could've taken it seriously. Stood genuine candidates, and pressed home the line that, "Farage was avoiding scrutiny." They could've said to the public, "We welcome this election and want you to judge him." Of the candidates standing a lead candidate could've emerged. If that person won it would be a legitimate, democratic and highly damaging victory.

Instead they have a situation where, win or lose, they've made themselves look like a genuine uniparty that's scared of the public vote.

As the feisty and much missed Ann Widdecombe noted in response, "They're frit."

Only a similar faux pas can hand them back the ground they've surrendered.

It's all happening..

In the age of the Internet war is heavy on the eyes.

I've been on Twitter too much. My eyes are sore. It's a punishment to begin typing this blog post, but type I must.

It's all happening.

Farage has stepped down, to go back to the public to get a renewed mandate. The establishment have unified behind a plastic bin.

Count Binface, the annoying joke political candidate has been fully weaponised, and everyone from journalists at the Times to Restore Britain's Uniparty accounts find it hilarious.

It's just oh, so funny. He's dressed as a bin.

I should talk about the politics, but my mind is more alarmed at the general unintelligence. I actually used the word retarded yesterday. I hate this word. There's something unnecessarily crude about it. Like calling someone thick. It's ungraceful. I don't like. It's not me. Yet, I couldn't help but reach for the word. All these people just look retarded. I don't know how better to put it.

When I see the Count Binface character - and this is the thing, he's not even new, he's been around a while - I always see it as something that perhaps I would've been amused by as a very small child. In fact, I remember as a small child being amused by Dusty Bin. My parents would watch the game show 3-2-1. As a four year old the adult game show didn't interest me much, but when the cartoon-like bin appeared on the screen my attention was grabbed.

It was like a crude ITV Mr. Potato Head. "Yes, that's Dusty Bin," my mam would gently say as I pointed at the screen.

Even back then though I wasn't that amused. It didn't have me hooked to the screen like Thomas the Tank Engine.

Anyway, that's what I think when I see the uniparty bin candidate. I think, "This is something I might have found funny as a small child." Then a conflicted impulse kicks in. "These people are like children, I shouldn't be so mean to them." After all, I'd never be mean to a child for laughing at the bin. I was once that child. Yet, at the same time, they're adults. "They're f*ffing adults," I think, "Why am I surrounded by these people?!"

When you see the entire political class doubled over in stiches, clearly thinking this is all brilliantly funny, it's disturbing. I feel like Julien Barratt's character from Nathan Barley, watching some well-paid journalist trundle down the street on a tiny scooter.

It's tiring. If there was some other country I could escape to. Some jungle hut where these people wouldn't bother me.

And yes, all this sounds arrogant. I don't care. You're all retards.

I just hope the people of Clacton aren't as easily amused.