This article isn’t a suggestion for another referendum on Brexit but an analysis of the past. As I said I think an citizens assembly (with experts on the topics in question who fall in the middle or from a variety of political spectrums) maybe better as it gives more chance for debate and exchange of ideas. It allows people the chance to not go into the voting booth poorly informed but with a variety of different perspectives. In that light I think a televised citizens assembly gives an additional chance for people to learn. I also think debaters should have the option of being anonymous as some perspectives are less popular. Any motions passed by the citizens assembly could be passed onto the house of commons + lords. I just think that’s a bit better than a potentially toxic referendum vote, with false information put out there during a build up to a vote. But that’s my personal opinion at the moment and I’m open to be swayed by rationality.

I just have this feeling the Brexit referendum was a set up to somehow “prove” referendums are a bad idea. Despite what I wrote in 2015/6 in longtermnews.com I don’t think referendums are always a good or bad idea, it just depends on the context. I do think a better informed public is a good idea, as is a place to debate and send ideas to Westminster, outside of simple petitions, as it allows debate and exchange of knowledge and perspectives. I’m pretty sure I wrote something along these lines in the original article but I’m just repeating myself a little. I think governments, the Chinese, the British etc, have tried to kill me for these reasons, they don’t want power leaving their official stations, and why have they tried to protect me – I really don’t know but I have a feeling it’s a combination guilt ridden and information ridden, they’d have a mutiny if they’d tried to kill someone who’s risked their life for peace and democracy, with so many people knowing and watching.

The Brexit referendum was a lose-lose, in my opinion. If we voted leave, then we weakened ties with our weakest ally and trading partner, Europe, if we voted remain, we had a bunch of people angry, partly fueled by years of anti Brussels hate in the papers of how we’d create better laws, not waste money sending it to Europe or have fishermen lose their rights without the Europe Union overarching. Lots of financial speculation was cast on the outcome by traders and gamblers so I’m sure there was potentially an element of making money from disaster politics. On which note, The Soverign Individual, is partly about this, as it’s written by two men whose background is financial speculation, and the book, in which Peter Thiel provides a forward in an 2020 edition, explains how there’s a huge amount of money to be made out of collapsing society and increasing terrrorism, which Palantir, Thiel’s firm deals in preventing. On this note, Thiel who’s deeply embedded in Western governments benefits financially, as do the markets, as it’s listed on the stock exchange, from terrorism. I just think the conflict of interest is so large it would be ridiculous to dismiss. Thiel personally financially benefits from organised crime, why would he, who makes money from crime, want to stop and arrest or raid, as I’d campaigned for, violent gangs, it’s in his interest to prevent crime at the point of attack, as I’ve seen time and time again against myself, but not arrest and try them. It’s also not in his interest to expose the royal family in use their violent use of gangs to control and prevent freedom or quality of life in society, through freemasonry.

If the government had wanted a win-win referendum, that wouldn’t have left ill feeling in either voting camps mouth, they would have asked the public almost exclusively on win-win’s where the country is already losing out, and if the public were to vote foolishly or from a lack of knowledge, then nothing would be lost. Such an example, from my perspective would be, should homeless people housed? This is in stark contrast to the ideology of Peter Thiel, who based on books such as The Soverign Individual believe homeless people are the ultimate parasite, as they occupy prime real estate without paying taxes or working. Some in silicon valley such as Peter also prize, as the Nerd Reich title hints at, autocracy or dictatorship. This is the opposite of my ideas, direct democracy, discussion, debate & mass participation when compared to dictatorships, are by definition opposites. This is not to say I hate Peter Thiel, I don’t believe in hate, it doesn’t lead to good things, but we just disagree and are at opposite ends of the spectrum on some quite key issues. Peter Thiel also isn’t sure mankind should endure but should potentially be replaced by ai, as human’s aren’t moving foward fast enough. I don’t really agree, fast transformation isn’t necessarily a good thing, it doesn’t give time for reflection, thought or analysis. If ai takes over all the good of humanity will disappear. If you read any of my stuff from Longtermnews.com, there were only three articles, all of which have been deleted by archive.org, then you see the value I’d placed on them. I don’t believe in any ideas of freemasonry and believe in thinking for yourself, and learning as much as you can, and being open to being wrong on things which aren’t historical facts. This is how I’ believe tried to come to opinion or ideas, and how I’ve tried to come to all my opinions. Though I try to write, I value Socrates on this as he said he would never write, as writing pins you to an idea, which may be wrong. I also value Gandi but I need to remember the reference.