The British
There was a post run at my and my colleagues' main site across the way on calculating the square root of a number "by hand" ... bear with me a minute here.
The lesson was that you could not get it exact via decimals but you can get close enough to establish "likelihood" via an old long division method. The method is tried and true, many might remember but it's flaws are firstly that it's exhaustive and exhausting, requiring due diligence and good memory, also multitasking whilst at the same time being able to focus on the one thing to the exclusion of others.
In other words, it's juggling contradictory skills and requirements to arrive at the nearest solution as dammit. Trouble is, this is maths, therefore many associate that with precision and "one only" answers. Life teaches that that's seldom the case, certainly in politics ... things are never as they exactly seem, often because they're not meant to show the reality.
So long time ferreters start to follow fail-safes and I'm doing that with two people ... one a pre-WEFer and the other here now ... Michael Heaver. Plus here.
As I plan to post his video below, my very first move is therefore to check him out, even if I think I know him ... plus things change over time. Plus checking things out can be a confirmation just as much as a debunking. Plus applying "the method" is good discipline and good scholars have good discipline.
First step is usually Wiki, which is a known-known for its left or woke bias ... early in, we get "far right", a trigger word, we get Infowars, also a trigger as Sandy Hook has by no means been established according to Jones's fine ... i.e. it's still very much "a thing", not explained.
Second is if I'm calling him Michael or Heaver or Mr. Heaver or that loony or that perspicacious young man of 35 in 2024 ... a dead giveaway as to the author's position. Plus that in itself is fraught ... I, as a pundit with my own views, am commenting on a guy who's commenting in a video on a phenomenon which has only really just come to light for most people ... for us pundits, it's a timely reminder to apply the method every single time, no exceptions ... it gets quicker with experience ... be wary of a priori assumptions ... when these are our own, we can show "confirmation bias", oft an error producer before we even start.
The best literary representation of "the method" was Conan Doyle's Holmes.
Third is the language I use ... what are my buzz words, what are his?
Fourth is to go straight for a negative question on ggl or other search engine ... know their biases too. With an actress, try xxxx is a slut or couch or even try a modern 304. "Respectable" people would be horrified at this advice but we're in the business here of finding out, using often hostile and algorithm biased search rngines to our own advantage. Don't just enter the name and take it as read, don't just enter a positive coz all you'll get back is eulogies ... confirmation bias. If you must use Snopes, know that anything anti-Woke will be slanted from him.
If you've drawn a blank on exhaustive sets of negatives about the man, then proceed with caution ... run the video, noting the bias up front before even starting:
If yiu truly have done your due diligence, then be aware that not everyone has and thus it's an uneven playing field, with goalposts changing the whole time, as in that square root finder mentioned at the start of this post.
Lastly on "the method" ... what of your own capacity to understand? Affected by age, life upbringing, experiences, health level, sleep, personality ... are you sombre and pedantic or flitting all over the place? Are you subconsciously following an agenda? Did you actually apply ALL the method above? Have I left any steps out?
Right ... after all that ... the massive bias towards the red v blue rosettes in parliamentary politics ...
Well of course there bleedin' well is ... they've had centuries to hone it, Swift wrote on it, so have others. There's always a third, ineffective party to pretend there's real choice. Look at our one ... Davey and his post office scandal.
Someone loses his or her seat? Give him a go g, kick him upstairs and make him an unelected minister of state, secretary of state. And last moment PPC parachuting in? And the whole notion of deep state anyway?
Bear all of it in mind above, then evaluate Nige's lot before his first speech ... will he ask the hard questions? Will he be allowed? Will he be squeezed iut like a Bridgen?
Early days. 🍿🍿🍿
The French
There is no better coverage of the French election than here:
https://nourishingobscurity.wordpress.com/2024/07/06/reader-drops-688/comment-page-1/#comment-9148
... if veracity and accuracy from a populist and/or Christian perspective is concerned. It will be updated here as and when DAD or IYE are able.
Michael Heaver, I have been watching his videos for some time. They're often short and to the point, focusing on may aspects of the western decline. I place him somewhere in the middle of the scale of the scales falling of the eyes scale. (Wot that mean - ed). In short, I trust him for the information he gives.
ReplyDelete