Thread by @swardley

Now (thank you Cummings) we finally understand that the reason why we didn't go the whole lockdown route back in March 20, despite it being overwhelmingly obvious is that a bunch of behavioural scientists thought the British population wouldn't accept it ... you effing muppets ->

Also, now we know that "herd immunity" was the plan ... I wish it hadn't been -

Oh, and that bloody flatten the curve graph ... gosh this is depressing ...

It's so sad. We are talking huge numbers of people who have died unecessarily. That's another 100k+ that can be added to the 120k+ killed off by austerity. This is madness ...

... so, I know Boris is all about getting people out there for a wonderful British summer etc but can we please not reduce lockdown for a month or two until will finally get down to zero covid and get a proper handle on this.

Zero covid should be our focus, don't squander this.

And yes, I understand that allowing continued infection increases variants and ultimately turns covid more into influenza giving wonderful future lucrative opportunities for re-occuring and ongoing vaccinations ... but please, no. Follow China's lead for once.

Well, I do hope we learn some lessons on transparency, challenge and learning from others (see China).

I am not happy with our current actions, we shouldn't reduce lockdown. Too soon. Too dangerous.

X : The problem was behavioural scientists?
Me : What? Oh, no ... that's just the excuse, it's what people in power wanted to hear. The problem was people vs the economy and that still remains the case.
X : It was the Dept of Health?
Me : Oh, that feels more like kayfabe.

If you listen to Dominic, he hits the nail on the head with the line "lions lead by donkeys" ... this is a problem not just with Government but with our wider economic system ...

... the UK has talent but ...

... and this is Dominic's mistake, he has attacked the privilege that exists which also holds the power. I don't think this is going to end well for him.

It's a bit like Corbyn going after the offshore trust funds, you're poking at a cackle of hyenas and they won't play nice.

The rest of Dominic's performance was pretty good, just enough believable truth upon piles of chaos and confusion ... it's like the pro wrestler going "pro wrestling is rigged" ... but that "lions led by donkeys" is sailing a bit too close to the winds.

X : Kayfabe?
Me : How Politics Became Pro Wrestling -

i.e. when you listen to Dominic Cummings discussion at the select committee, it's hard not to think of a "worked shoot" ... in other words, what's happening might not be what you think is happening.

X : "Worked shoot"?
Me : Watch the video then watch Cummings performance. The grievances, the pointing fingers, the shown emphathy, the flashes of truth ... it's all leads away from the one thing that matters.
X : Which is?
Me : 128,000 people are dead. In China, it's 4,600.

X : Do you believe China's figures?
Me : The only question you need to ask is .... "Why aren't there 2.7M deaths in China due to COVID?" ... it'll tell you pretty much everything you need to know.

‘tens of thousands’ died unnecessarily because of way Covid was handled - theguardian.com/politics/live/…

... hmmm, try about 100k died unecessarily, possibly more.

he didn't watch all of Dominic Cummings' testimony because he was busy 'saving lives' - news.sky.com/story/matt-han… ... and so it begins, the who is telling the truth, the question of who is at fault ... all missing the obvious question. Why haven't 2.7M died in China?

We're not though covid yet, as far I as I am concerned we seem hellbent on trying to turn it into influenza, a repeating seasonal nightmare. We still haven't learnt from China and this current distraction of who is to blame doesn't help us.

X : Is the problem Matt Hancock?
Me : You're not getting this are you? The problem isn't Matt Hancock, the problem is the entire system, our mechanisms of privilege and our refusal to learn ... the rest is all a distraction. You cannot blame Matt Hancock for this.

This is why that one line of "lions led by donkeys" by Dominic is so dangerous, it exposes the underlying system and it needs to be repeated endlessly until people realise that this is the heart of the problem.

X : Who should lead then? You?
Me : No. The answer to that is no-one and everyone. Leadership should be transient according to the situation we find ourselves in. The problem is our entire system which associates leadership with past privilege which itself is just ... luck.

X : China is a dictatorship.
Me : I give up. I'm going to bed. Over the next decade, China will be far ahead of the world on four fronts - economic power, technological power, sustainability and equality. We are just going to look like muppets and that's what we deserve.

X : No one is blaming Matt Hancock for the 'problem'
Me : I think Dom and others are pointing the finger but the issue is not Matt but the system itself. I happen to like Matt but the entire political system (ditto business) does not represent the best of the UK.

X : You don't think UK has talent?
Me : UK has talent, it's just the real talent is probably living on a council estate working two jobs whilst bringing up children as a single mum and we've got donkeys for leaders. Our problem is privilege, it has always been privilege.

X : I don't understand why you think the real talent lives on a council estate?
Me : Tell me about yourself?
X : Built a company, investor, engineer, doctorate.
Me : Do you think that has anything to do with your hard work and talent?
X : Yes.
Me : That's your problem.

X : You think it's just luck?
Me : Of course not. If you want success to be a probability function then privilege is the dominant variable, luck second and then to a much lesser extent you have hardwork and talent.

X : I don't believe you.
Me : I wouldn't expect you to. In order to create a vastly unequal society which exhibits the power law distribution of today's society ... I only need privilege (past luck, inherited) and a second variable of luck. You want to believe it's talent ...

... because everyone that succeeds in a system wants to believe it's because of something special about them. If you really want to release the talent then ..
X : ... democracy?
Me : Almost. Sortition. Random selection. You have to counter privilege.

X : I thought you were a fan of democracy?
Me : I am. But when you say "democracy", you're thinking elections and voting for people. That often reinforces privilege. I'm thinking "representative democracy" and that can be achieved through random selection to a parliament.

You keep the same institutions, including voting on laws but rather than us voting for our representative members they are randomly selected among us to serve for a period of three or more years before retiring to the house of lords (or representatives).

X : That's still luck.
Me : Yes but that's today's luck and is random. You've diminished the privilege aspect which is the point. You're more likely to get actual talent.
X : What about companies.
Me : Well. Given Fitza's work ...
X : Fitza?

Me : Yes, decomposition of CEO effects on company performance.
X : English?
Me : Execs have little or no impact that is distinguishable beyond random chance. In other words, you might as well randomly select people off the street.

X : I made a difference.
Me : We all tell ourselves this. Then we normally read something on humility and go "it was a team effort" but to ourselves we secretly say "a team led by me!" ... it's mostly a delusion. You made no difference, the team didn't need you.

X : Well, if execs don't make a difference why randomly select? Why not get rid of them?
Me : Well, that's a good question and one which is starting to bubble up in many spaces in different guises and different prototypes - daohaus.club

X : Leaderless leadership? That thing you talked about.
Me : Yes, but like serverless there still are leaders. It's just transient, constantly changing, according to the context. We're seeing this with masks4all, ESL, GameStop/WSB, BurningMan and many other protypes.

X : Isn't that quite dangerous?
Me : Depends upon who you are. I don't think it's a coincidence that organisations led by "powerful and charismatic" leaders in hierarchical structures are desperate to get everyone back into the office where status symbols of power matter.

X : What's causing this?
Me : Communication mechanisms - social media, online collaboration etc. Similar societal changes happened with the early internet, telephone, postage stamp, printing press ... it's that sort of scale ...

... don't expect existing power structures to just let this happen,
X : And what's does that mean?
Me : Expect oodles of social media regulation usually under the guise of something else such as security / privacy and not mentioning once "protecting existing power structures".

Me : A bit like the old radio days.
X : You mean pirate radio?
Me : Radio was a vibrant world of hackers and citizen broadcasts long before broadcasting corporations and legislation was created to stop these upstarts.

X : I think the team needs me.
Me : The team only needs you when it is starved of information, starved of situational awareness. starved of authority and has been institutionalised or abused to the point that it cannot make decisions or think for itself.

... when people talk about servant leaders what they often mean is "we're going to do something unsual and give you what we keep taking away ... authority, awareness and information ... and then get out of your way" ... it's an agreement not to abuse as if abuse is the norm.

But there is something subtle going on, a shift between what @CatSwetel described as power over (agency of the individual over others), power with (collective effort and control) and power to (distribution of power to the furthest edges).