History

       Each generation has the tendency to look backward at history and to the personalities that shaped it, to re-evaluate it and judge its main actors.  Historians evaluate history and historical figures in the normal practice of their profession; most attempt to do this work to a high-standard, scientifically, and without personal prejudice.  However, history is often used as a tool by unscrupulous people within a society to promote their personal and particular points of view; history may be manipulated or re-written to accommodate these purposes.  Though to some degree, the public shows little overt regard for history as something essential to the society, in truth, history has been and remains an integral component of a society’s identity.  

       The honest interpretation of history and the figures that made history is an extremely delicate and difficult task that requires a studied professionalism to achieve.  To look backward into history and to gain any meaningful insight, one must first be able to place aside his own modern and personal views; it is essential to leave aside preconceptions and to construct concepts only on the basis of actual material from the period in question.  Even when a good deal of material is available for a period of history, the researcher must be prepared to accept that the best reconstruction of that period will never be complete.  When a historical figure is the subject of research, the difficulty of reconstructing the life and mentality of that figure increases. To reconstruct a historical figure, a very good understanding of the world that figure lived in is required. Only by first understanding the circumstances around the historical figure can a historian hope to have any understanding of the mentality or actions of the person in question.  In all cases, the depth of understanding that can actually be achieved for any historical period or personage is very limited, more limited than what we can achieve for our own period and public figures alive in our own time.  The gaps in understanding and available historical information leave ample room for creative minds with dubious intentions to base their own theories and agendas on.

        Various politicians, pseudo-historians, obscure political groups, social movements, and those who find a means to personally benefit from creatively manipulating incomplete historical views or the fragmentary understanding of historical personalities do so, with little reserve, and often.  For politicians and fringe political groups, history and historical figures, which an entire society knows about, are useful material to use for bolstering their positions. 

        What better commercial can be found for a politician and a political party, than they are the historical descendants of a Lincoln or a Churchill? To accommodate that commercial, it may be needed to bend history a bit, to change Lincoln’s particular view ever so slightly, they will have Churchill be quoted as having said one thing instead of another; it is possible to re-write history and considered expedient to do so when it serves current needs. This practice is the natural consequence of these politicians and political groups having little value or importance in themselves and thus gaining great benefit from using the historical greats to lift them up. 

       Periodically a new social movement will emerge which promises to advance society in one way or another, usually in opposition to some evil which is perceived as historical in origin. Again, history and historical figures will be manipulated or re-written to serve the current movement in its objectives. 

       Living people are, as a habit, occupied in the pursuit of going about their particular personal interests without an awareness of the  long history and countless lives lived that have unfolded long before they ever existed. Yet without these historical people and their histories, we would not be where we are or doing the things we do today. History and the many lives lived by countless people may be virtually without conscious importance to most living people, but every living person, every society, every custom, every law, tradition,  habit, and fashion we have is derived from them. It is common for living people to follow traditions and customs without really understanding why; as far as they know, this is how things have always been done, this is what they have been taught, and so this is what they do.

       Knowing history, and learning what the origin of our traditions and customs are may be very useful to modern society. Often a tradition or custom originated under particular circumstances and for particular reasons; it may be found that modern circumstances are completely different from those that originated the custom or tradition. In some cases, discarding the tradition or custom would be of benefit to the society. However, to make such a choice consciously and with a rational mind, requires a good understanding of the historical circumstances of that tradition and what the ramifications would be in changing it.

        In many cases laws have been made under certain historical circumstances which have changed in the course of time. Many times it has been found that a law that once worked well for its period became unjust and out of place as times changed. Having a good understanding of the historical circumstances of the law’s origin and how circumstances changed in time have allowed reasonable people to enact reasonable changes to those laws so that they align more harmoniously with modern living people.

       In understanding history and the origins of our modern world, we obtain the informed possibility to rationally view our society and rationally decide what is beneficial to it as well as what is detrimental to it. A good and accurate view of history gives us one more useful tool to constructively manage our lives and the world we live in. History can educate and illuminate society; it can help guide us in difficult choices we face today by showing us, at least partially, what has come before when others have had similar choices.

       One proof of the importance history plays in relation to our modern society can be deduced by how often and how insistently many unscrupulous individuals and governments seek to distort or outright re-write our history. Though we may naturally regard ourselves as superior to generations that have come before us, and view their perspectives as inferior and less developed than our own, we are where we are exactly because of their views, mentalities, and actions; to understand ourselves completely and the world we now live in, it is essential to understand how it came to be. The importance of history to modern people cannot be over stated, the importance of treating it with care is equally difficult to over emphasize; the ease with which it can be misused is frightening, and should, as in such cases, cause each of us to approach it with a critical mind when we see its use in our modern world.

Nations

       If we look at the concept of the nation, how do we define it? Is it simply a physical location inhabited by a particular group of people? Is it an intangible human construct, the value of which is only defined and given by people? Is it something sacred and consecrated by God? Generally, people who place the highest value on their nations like to imbue their nations with characteristics of all three, a physical location, virtually indefinable with great value coming from its people and consecrated by God.

       There is a great habit with people when faced with the uncertainty and the impermanence characteristic to life, to attribute indestructible and eternal qualities to our very human and very limited creations as a means of assuaging our fear.  Historically no nation has been eternal regardless of how great or how powerful it has been at its apogee. Eventually through one route or another, every nation declines into insignificance or completely cedes its independence altogether. Virtually every people indulges in the human habit of attributing mystical properties to its nation. A mythology is created in which the founding of the nation was ordained by God and enacted by demigods. We are led to believe that these heroes’ characteristics are still residing deep within the nation itself and within its people. A nation founded in such a way is undoubtedly blessed by God and will be assisted by God in whatever travails it may encounter. This is traditional human nature; it would be shortsighted to believe that in modern times this human characteristic has simply vanished. It is likely this traditional belief has evolved to match current modes and habits and is still present in our way of thinking.

       How indestructible and important is any creation of a human being? If we look at money in two different contexts, we will have a good example by which to determine such values. Nothing is so valued or sought after in all parts of the world. At this moment in time, almost nothing can happen without the presence of money, the support of money, or some question relating to money. Money is the creation of people; it only has meaning and value to people.  If we consider having ten million dollars in a brief case, and consider all that could be done with this in our world, we can imagine the importance we and others would place on this brief case filled with money. Now imagine finding oneself on a deserted island with the exact same briefcase. Imagine that you would never leave that place. Exactly what would that money now be worth in such a context?  It would still be what it was before, and perhaps would be worth exactly the same amount if taken someplace where there are other people; however, in a context without other people, and without that society, it will become worthless.

       Like money, many creations of people are worthless without other people to appreciate or value them as they are only human creations. Their great intrinsic value is that we value them.  It is entirely possible that the great value of a nation is that it is valued by its own people, nothing more than this. The addition of blessings from God and a super-hero mythology that we place on top of our nation is only for our own psychological benefit.

        It is true that a nation will be described as a physical territory which is inhabited by a particular people, but a nation is more than this. A nation is a people who exist in a location, for a given amount of time, who ascribe to themselves certain attributes, and in essence through their own desire, give themselves a high sense of self-worth.  This is not a permanent state of being, it is not immutable, and being based on the mentalities of the people, what that nation is, what it represents, or generally how it is defined, can change at any time, or in time, based on the desires of its people.

Passions and Emotions

       In contrast to careful intellectually informed insight, it is common to let emotion and passions dictate our positions on issues and guide our choices in making important decisions.  Like fear, emotion and passion are not thought but rather reactive energy directed in a single direction; as reactions they seek resolution through immediate action. By nature, emotion cannot regard anything contrary to its desire; as a result, it makes a poor basis for problem solving. Insight arises from an exhaustive consideration of information from every possible perspective.  The difference between these two modes is also visible in the change society has undergone over the last several decades.

       Increasingly, careful thinking in problem solving has been pushed aside in favor of reactive action. Rather than take time to carefully devise solutions to problems, the society has come to expect leaders to take any action in the moment, regardless of its rectitude. With the advent of the internet, social media, and the possibility these tools have given average people to express immediate opinions without filtering, the problem had been exasperated. These technological advances have placed the individual person in the position of being capable to express their private positions to many millions of other people in a moment; conversely, millions have been given the opportunity to react and give their opinions on those positions. 

       When in former times, writers had to study ethics, had an editor monitoring their words, and were held accountable for their public opinions when they were in the position to reach millions of people with their words, the new democratization offered by social media is given without any real accountability being placed on those who use it. The result is millions of people expressing their opinions to each other, often without careful thought, and frequently motivated by immediate emotion. The phenomenon itself acts like a feedback loop for the society, pushing it for immediate action, immediate solutions, and emotional responses to problems rather than intellectual solutions.

       Slowly year after year, the society seems to divide along emotional lines into warring camps incapable of mutual understanding. Understanding requires thought; the divisions are not thought based, but rather emotional.  Many would disagree with this idea, stating that their positions are very much based on ideas; nevertheless, the proof of the statement lays in how they support their positions, without logic, but with passion and hate for their opposition. Again, emotion and not thought.  Currently, the material problems societies face can be managed with a fair amount of effort in support of well thought out plans; the greatest problem facing society is that passion and emotion are dictating the course of events and this is preventing the society from uniting and devising workable solutions to solve them.

Fear

        In the natural world the impulse of fear aids in survival. Fear narrows thinking causing it to become focused the immediate need to overcome or avoid a possible threat. As civilization has developed, so has fear. Beyond the fear attached to immediate survival, a multitude of fears have propagated to match the range of our interests and activities. The number of our fears has virtually become limitless, with our greatest fears being the unknown, the uncertain, and of losing what we have obtained for ourselves.  When fear becomes chronic and unrelenting, fear will no longer be concentrated on a particular object, but will become a constant condition. Vague and undefined, this state of fear will seem to exist without cause. Psychologically, the mind will struggle to find ways to justify its existence as something rational.  This type of vague and constant state of fear will often be found in the individual, or when dealing with millions of people, it will be found as a dominant characteristic of an entire society. 

       Fear is instinctual, an emotion which insists on action with little or no time allowed for thought. When fear is a constant state and when thought should help alleviate it, thought is distorted and twisted backward on itself, irrationally supporting and justifying the constancy of the fear.  In the case of an individual, it will be determined that the person suffers from paranoia, anxiety, or some other disorder which manifests this mental state; external help can be offered. In the case of society, when a mass of millions of people suffer together from this affliction, the situation will become dire as there is no family member to give help, no higher power to intervene and insist on positive treatment of the condition. The patient will continue on, becoming more distorted, making greater and greater errors of judgment, becoming more deluded as time progresses.  The delusions caused by such a societal fear will blind the society from the dangers it faces from its own actions. When voices are raised to offer an alternative approach, or suggest that things may not be as they seem, the instinct of fear will incentivize action to censor them.

       When fear becomes the general state of society, its course will become erratic and its ability to cope with crisis will diminish. The public policies in such a state of affairs will be limited and shortsighted, usually in response to a few particular areas which are the focus of the fear governing the public psyche. As the focus is limited, problems and developments which fall outside of the narrow area of interest will be ignored to develop into much larger problems; if a crisis emerges unexpectedly the society will be caught completely unprepared to deal with it.  The bad management in such a situation will lead to greater and greater difficulties for the society.  As the situation deteriorates, there may come to be multiple factions of the society each reacting to arising problems, and in conflict with each other.

       The solution to fear and the problems it gives to society is reason. To manage a system as complex as a society which is a part of an even larger global system, it is crucial to use logic and reason; it is imperative to base decisions on all available information, to consider every possible solution and every possible consequence to each solution. Time is essential in making good choices, fear demands a rapid response, but well thought out plans require time to be formulated and usually require time to be adequately executed.  For good and thoughtful management of complex situations in a democratic society, two things are required: Politicians that will not pander to the fears of the society to gain or maintain their positions, and for the millions of individuals that make up that society to ask their politicians for more than the immediate satisfaction of their fear.  It is the last point that is perhaps the most essential, it is the individual’s ability to overcome their own fear and choose reason that determines the state of the society.  The individual must be aware that sacrifice and patience is often required in making the right choices that will ultimately make a better society.  It is also important that the individual realizes the difference between what they want personally, and what should happen at the larger level of society; what may be good for them, may be very bad for the larger society. They must understand with reason, that to be a good citizen, sometimes they must discard their desires for the good of the larger society. 

       When personal fear is placed to the side, and only reason is used in judgment of situations, an altruistic and more humane approach is really the ultimate outcome.  Without fear guiding our choices, we see that when we each help our neighbor and consider others in our society, then our society becomes a place where each one is respected and cared for. A society of millions of people living and taking action in fear makes a society of fear that makes poor choices; a society of millions of people using reason and rational thinking to conquer their fears creates a more rational society capable of taking logical and timely decisions to overcome any crisis.

The Importance of the Individual

       To determine the strength and well being of a nation, it is wise to consider the individual citizen living in that nation. A strong society is truly strong when the individual members of that society are mentally and physically healthy. When the majority of individuals are healthy and act in a constructive way, the society will flourish. If the majority of individuals act negatively or egotistically, without regard for others within the society, this is sign of a weakening and decaying society.   

       The psychologist Karl Jung describes the process of individualization as the single greatest personal responsibility of every human being.  He demonstrates the lack of certainty that a human being will achieve this goal; nevertheless, to be a psychologically healthy person that positively contributes to the world in which they live, then this must be achieved. He shows that this process occurs in stages and at specific periods of a person’s life. Middle age is the crucial period when a human being must usually sort through the baggage of their previous years. They determine what is necessary, what best represents them, and what is their essence as an individual person. Having answers to these questions they determine what they can offer the world and what place they should occupy within it. In short, the process of individualization should produce a unique individual that can operate as a positive and constructive member of society. 

       Jung demonstrates that while this process requires effort on the part of the individual, it may necessitate outside help as well.  He also establishes that in many cases this process remains incomplete, and as a result the individual person will be hampered in his attempts to live a constructive and fulfilling life.  His research details the way in which previous cultures would help individual members of their societies navigate this process by means of rituals and mythologies.  While older cultures seem to have instinctively recognized the importance of this process for their society, in many cases, outside of psychology, modern society views this as unimportant or a superfluous remainder of less advanced cultures.

       The modern world speaks of individuality and of the importance of the individual; however, it promotes uniformity through media, marketing, politics, and commerce.  Little regard is given to the mental health of individual members of society.  There is small recognition that an individual will need to withdraw from society at some point to gain self-understanding that he may later return to offer something significant or useful to society.

       Many modern societies give little or no concern to the individual citizens; they regard them as a generalized average that may come in one or two variations. It has become a practice in recent times to acknowledge the importance of minority groups; while a positive development on its own, this remains a generalization that uses characteristics unrepresentative of the individual, to determine the composition of a group.  There is a great force within society for the individual to throw aside the bulk of his individuality to conform and unite with the society, and yet, there is no great reason why an individual cannot be the best member of society when he is at his most unique.  The suppression and compulsion to twist the individual to fit the society seems to be based on the assumption that the individual’s uniqueness will be subversive or disruptive to the integrity of the society.

       The individual is the greatest minority within a society, a unique minority of one, autonomous and able to act independently of group consensus.  The individual can do great good and great evil.  It is the smart individual that may invent a new solution to an old problem; it is the selfless individual that can sacrifice themselves to the benefit of his fellow citizens; it is the charitable individual that will stop and help another citizen in need; it is the kind individual that will help a stranger carry a heavy bag or open a door for them when they have their hands full; it is these individual actions performed by individuals that make society operate as something positive.  Conversely, it is also the lazy individual that will trick others into doing his or her work; it is the weak individual that will become an addict and a burden on his family and society; it is the narcissistic individual that will hurt anyone close to him to obtain his personal gratification; the egotistical individual that will do anything to achieve his ambitions; the evil individual that will murder to get what he wants. All the good and all the evil in our world comes from individual people, to ignore the individual is to ignore the source of all our problems and to ignore the possible solution to all our problems. 

       What makes an individual choose to be good or choose to be evil in their actions? Whatever we may say from the standpoint of religion or natural character; encouragement, education, and opportunity play a significant role in this choice. By education, we must understand that this includes more than factual knowledge accumulated in school for the purpose of future work; education includes how a person should act, how a person should see himself and others, and must include an understanding of his own abilities as an individual. Encouragement should include respect for a person’s individuality, for his abilities, and include the real material help to realize his best possible contribution to the world. Opportunity should be practical; it should give the way in each area of human activity, to the individuals who have the talent and ability to get good things done, not only to those born with the right circumstances or for those who stop at nothing to take opportunity for themselves. 

       We currently live in a world in which we say unfettered competition will produce the best results, and yet this encourages people to use whatever means they can to achieve their goals. In some instances they will act in criminal ways to get what they want. If they are not caught, then they succeed, if caught and unable to escape by one method or another, then they are punished. In such a system, dirty tricks are encouraged and those that benefit the most are those that already have the benefit and protection of a privileged position in society.  This is the law of the jungle, and though the argument has a logic to it, it stands in contradiction to other concerns in society; this contradicts our desire for fairness, for merit to decide benefits, our desire for law, our desire for equal opportunity with ability deciding the final results, this mainly contradicts the concept of civilization. In the world of absolute competition and where those with power and influence simply maintain that power and influence, the individual will often be left without a reasonable path to follow in pursuit of his talent and ability, leaving the society without the potential benefits that individual could contribute. This system does not encourage an individual to develop what is best in them, it promotes what is worst.

       We cannot expect a healthy society to emerge from a collection of unhealthy individuals. When the individual is unable to reasonably be himself and to fulfill the calling of the best part of his nature then it is to be expected that he will become a twisted version of himself and a negative weight on the society in which he lives. When the society hinders or neglects the needs of the individual it contributes to its own weakness and degradation.  If we wish to build strong societies we must concentrate on building strong individuals; we must nurture the individual, assist him in perfecting his uniqueness, and help him to accomplish his best possible destiny within the context of our societies.

The Individual in the Time of the Smartphone

       The individual human being has borne the brunt of the changes the globalized world and its constituent societies have experienced over the last eighteen years; the individual may be the great casualty of these changes, but he may also be held accountable as their greatest cause.  The desire of the individual to be entertained or to have the next novelty is an aspect of basic human nature. From the desire in the individual to have what is new, and his willingness to pay for it, companies have been incentivized to constantly innovate regardless of the degree of actual need for a new technology to exist. As a result, technology has been created without consideration for the consequences to people or society. The most invasive and disruptive technology in recent times has been the internet coupled to the smartphone. 

       Though the internet existed before the millennium, the impact of this global network has only been fully experienced by the youngest generations.  Advances in the miniaturization of computers have allowed for the development of the ubiquitous smartphone. The ever increasing casual usage of the internet, resulting from the portability of the smartphone, combined with the advent of social media to produce a moment in history where virtually anyone, anywhere on the planet, could be in constant contact with any other person without hindrance to their communication.  Individual people from around the globe began constructing large networks of contacts that spanned the planet. In consequence of these personal networks and through the development of blogs, livestreaming audio, and video; individual people also gained the ability to become their own private media outlets.  This advance has been an amazing opportunity for the individual to express himself and reach a massive audience, without the support or approval of companies or other important individuals.

        Liberated from the filters of editors and media ethics, the free internet often leads unscrupulous individuals to use this medium to spread hate, lies, and rumors. Individuals are able to criticize and attack other individuals in previously impossible ways, and to do this with an anonymity and physical distance that gives them the inflated confidence to act with impunity. One result of billions of individuals saying whatever they want, whenever they want, is to create an information soup that the individual finds difficult to decipher. Increasingly it is difficult to tell the truth from the lies; society is becoming reduced to a state of paranoia.

       An additional effect of these technologies is the subtly increasing isolation individuals experience in the real world as they spend growing amounts of their time nurturing their virtual lives. Social media contacts coupled with portable technology, especially the camera on the smartphone, drive this development.   Real life presents difficulties that one can avoid by living a virtual life, so long as that virtual life is carefully curated. 

       Individuals with average lives can find themselves in contact with and in social-media competition with celebrities.  Celebrities photograph themselves at various occasions with other celebrities while doing interesting things. The individual with the banal existence finds himself editing his photos to emulate those of the celebrity.  He makes effort to stage photos so that he will appear interesting; in reality what he posts is an illusion. Those who do this constantly, become addicted to it. They become more concerned with how many likes they have on one of their photos or how many virtual friends they have collected on their profiles than what they actually have in reality. The obsessive nature of the habit, and the constant demands it makes to maintain, have the real world consequence of draining away the drive for real world achievement and fulfillment. The real is sacrificed to gain the temporary and the illusionary glory of social media success.  When reality interrupts the dream, the shock and confusion that result are all too real.

       Older generations remain surprised by these developments; younger generations accept them as typical. It is nearly impossible to intelligibly convey to new generations what life was before this technology existed, or that what is considered typical now is an unfortunate aberration resulting from the hasty adoption of new technology.  Though this technology is ever present, and its effects are currently seen in all aspects of people’s lives, an individual can also choose to limit the degree of disruption that it causes to his life. Even as the individual has access to this technology, he does not have to be defined by it.

Transitions

       There is an idea arising naturally in the mind, that the world we are born into is the world as it has always been, and yet the moment we are born to is always a moment of transition. The world that was, and will never return, becomes a world that will be, but has yet to arrive. We accept the world we mature in as typical; we view what came before us as being antiquated and inconsequential in relation to where we are and where we desire to go. As new events arise and new concepts overtake those that were current when we were younger, we also quickly incorporate these into our concept of what is normal. It becomes bizarre to us to understand that many of the aspects of our current world are new; they are less usual than we assume when we view the entirety of human history, and not as permanent as we may believe.  The modern world in which we live is in a state of transition, perhaps the greatest and most rapid transition humanity has experienced since the adoption of agriculture. 

       For more than a thousand years human technological and social development remained fairly constant in its progression, nearly 500 years ago this began to change with a frightening acceleration. Each century brought an even more rapid pace of development in every area of human interest.  New areas of study have been born as the range of human knowledge has been expanded by new discoveries. Advancements and new concepts have been seen in an array of disciplines including those of politics and of nations.  There has been development to the concepts of the individual citizen and the citizen’s place within a broad society.

       Our present concepts of citizenship and of nations are not just new; they are still in a state of transformation. It has only taken a few centuries for the transition of the average human being from subjugated serf, under the direct rule of a hereditary feudal lord, to citizen in reasonable possession of self-determination, with the right to help direct the future of his nation by electing his leaders.  The modern nation as we understand it, with the rights of citizens that we recognize today, is really less than 200 years old.  Presently, the full rights of citizens and full self-determination are still in the process of being disseminated to all people within our societies.  History shows us that our true state of being is one of constant change. It becomes strange when people take the present moment and hold it up as a static reality that always has been or always will be; oddly, others look to a moment in the past, as opposed to the present, and point to it as the moment when the world was normal and good.

       What the word nation means, to be a good citizen of a nation, or love for your nation, are all concepts which are still developing. A nation and society with a completed development will have a complete and static list of all the rights and obligations of its citizens; no nation has such a list as all are constantly making new laws, giving new rights, and revoking old rights. All nations are constantly in a state of change at all times. All nations are a work in progress. What it means to be a citizen of any nation is also a concept that remains incomplete.

        It is reasonable to believe that this is the true cause of conflict over such issues; we are in a debate as to what these things mean exactly because they are incomplete ideas. At present, no argument is being made to definitively show what it means to be a good citizen, to love one’s nation, or even what the true nature of a nation is.  When people insist that they have reached such a conclusion, they can only do this by deliberately ignoring the lessons of history; refusing to accept change as a general law of all human life; and by failing to realize that whatever we have made, will be just as easily unmade or turned completely on its head.  In contrast, if we are honest with ourselves, we will see that no nation is eternal, or sacred, or indestructible. No position on citizenship or loving one’s nation is eternal, sacred, or indestructible. The only value, meaning, and importance in any of these issues is like life itself, those which we give them in this one moment, in whatever way we choose.  

A Question of Time

       As a modern civilization we take pride in our technological advancements, and yet as our technology becomes ever more refined and our dependence on it becomes in equal terms ever greater, our civilization becomes increasingly fragile.  When we think of an apocalypse, we often think in terms of the ultimate and momentary destruction of a civilization. For every civilization’s ending, we can trace how its ultimate demise was being constructed simultaneously within the means of its creation.

       Every civilization and empire in history has inevitably collapsed. In virtually every case, this has been the result of negative aspects from within the civilization which developed to such an extent as to either fatally weaken the civilization or to outright cause its ruin.  Often these attributes that led to the civilization’s end, were also at some point in its history, part of what made that civilization great in the first place. If we consider the technologically advanced Mayan empire which grew to become so strong and so large, much of its power was derived from its advanced irrigation systems for agriculture. This technology allowed the Mayans to construct large inter-connected cities which in many ways mirror our own modern world. Nevertheless, the Mayans were dependent on these same irrigation systems to maintain their civilization. With changing weather patterns, their system of irrigation and agriculture collapsed, and along with it, their entire civilization. 

       Over centuries, the Romans developed a massive empire founded on their technology and political bureaucracy.  Their technology enabled them to build a road system throughout their empire which permitted them to move their commerce and military with relative ease.  Their system of aqueducts made it possible for them to keep large cities supplied with fresh water.  The political system of their empire allowed for strong central command with delegated authority which could control its vast territory. 

       The combination of political and technological advancements made the Roman Empire one of the most successful in history; this combination resulted in an unprecedented period of stability which enabled the refinement of civil society.  Yet in time, the powerful central control of the empire and its stability led to its demise. After centuries of success and stability, the central government became bloated and corrupt. Even as the empire had grown large and strong with its first emperors, it began to disintegrate and weaken under a series of weak and ineffective emperors. For the first time in hundreds of years Rome was invaded and sacked.  The Roman Empire in the west came to its end around the termination of the 4^th century.  With the collapse of the central government, the various regions of the empire splintered away and were taken over by either invaders or local leaders; as this process occurred, the technology that had once allowed the Romans to build large and powerful cities virtually all but completely vanished. It would take over 1000 years for Europe to recover the knowledge and engineering capabilities lost in the fall of Rome. 

       Our current civilization is unique in history. For the first time, a civilization is global in reach. The development of our present civilization began slowly over centuries as we first rediscovered the knowledge which had been lost with the fall of Rome, and then augmented it with new technological advancements. With new technology we were able to reach every corner of the globe and eventually tie it together. Whereas former civilizations and empires were maintained within limited territories by means of homogeneous populations and military power, our current global civilization is one of diverse populations tied together by shared technology and shared concepts of civil society.

       Our technology is becoming more and more refined and fragile as we are becoming increasingly dependent on it. We have machinery to help us produce massive quantities of food for billions of people. We have built great highways, constructed railways, and have refrigeration technology; all of which allows for the transportation of mass quantities of food to be made available to millions of people collected in mega cities. We have great reservoirs of water and pumps to provide fresh water to our cities.  Most of our records maintaining the political and financial bureaucracy that keeps our society in order are now efficiently stored and managed by digital means. Many of our civil activities involve computers or smartphones connected through the internet. In each case mentioned, electricity is essential for all of this to continue functioning.  Yet, all of this technology and everything that depends on it is vulnerable to something as simple and unpredictable as a strong solar flare. If such a flare were to erupt from the sun and be oriented directly at earth, it would cause a massive disruption to all the technology that our civilization requires to remain stable.  If such a disruption occurs, the consequences to a population that mainly lives in urban areas that absolutely requires the proper functioning of this technology in order to survive would be catastrophic.

       Beyond the potential for disaster to arise from weaknesses in our infrastructure, there are a number of issues which are equally as dangerous and equally connected to the means we exploit to run our civilization. Chief among the potential problems arising from our current civilization is that of climate change. Much of the energy we use to power our civilization and the machines that maintain it is derived from fossil fuels such as oil and coal. As we burn these natural materials to release energy, we let massive quantities of carbon into the atmosphere which in turn causes the atmosphere to retain more energy from sunlight. The sun’s energy is accumulated in our atmosphere, and this causes the average temperature of the planet to increase. With the increase of average global temperature, the ice at the polar regions of the planet begins to melt, the oceans begin to raise and the increase in heat energy within the oceans and within the atmosphere begin to cause more powerful and more volatile storm systems which become increasingly more damaging to our activities. The increase in temperature also begins to make large areas of the planet near to the equator virtually uninhabitable. The change in temperature causes disruption to weather systems leading to droughts in unusual places which threatens mainly heavily populated areas causing them to be at risk from a lack of fresh drinking water, a lack of water for agriculture, and an increased risk of forest fires.  All of these effects and more resulting from climate change, place extreme pressure on our ability to maintain the stability of our civilization.

       If the problems for our climate caused by our activities are not enough to deal with, the exploitation of natural resources to maintain the lifestyle characteristic of our civilization is equally devastating and unsustainable.  As a population of eight billion citizens, our civilization requires immense amounts of food.  To satisfy this hunger we use machines to clear forests to use the land for agriculture; we use other machines to cultivate that land and fertilizers to ensure the crops grow to specific specifications. As the land is cleared and rains come,  the fertilizers we use on the crops erode away eventually finding their way into the oceans where they help to acidify the water and kill off large portions of marine life. If the stress on aquatic life from poisoning is not horrific enough, then we mass hunt fish species to provide our billions of citizens with fresh sea food. The two activities together are killing our oceans. On land the situation is as bleak, with the destruction of the forests, with increasing urbanization, and with the changing climate caused by our use of fossil fuels, we are destroying the natural habitat of many species. As a result of the pressures and stresses of our civilization’s activities, many species are either extinct already, or are on the verge of extinction. As the earth's biodiversity is being destroyed by our civilization, there is a great risk that the entire interconnected bio system will begin to fail, in turn this will increase the number of extinctions and eventually make life on earth difficult for what life remains, including humans. 

       In science fiction, we portray possible futures, many of them are dystopian or apocalyptic, and yet the scenarios listed here are very possible and a far more catastrophic vision than most science fiction describes.  Over one hundred years ago a solar flare would have only have been an inconvenience, now it could mean the end of our civilization. The means we employ to build and maintain our current world, if left unmodified, will eventually destroy our civilization. This house of cards we have built up is unique in the history of our planet; the fragility of the systems it is built on makes its ultimate collapse but a question of luck in the short term and an inevitability in the long run. Embedded within the characteristics of our civilization which have enabled us to reach such an unparalleled height is the hidden potential and eventual certainty for an equally unparalleled fall.   

The Art of Change

       Change is among the most difficult accomplishments in life. Though change may seem as simple as taking an action, the questions arise: what change to take and where to find the mental impetus to make the change. Whether we desire to quit smoking, start exercising, or change the world in which we live; real change in life is a skill which we must develop. If this skill for change is learned and put into practice we will have the ability to make the most of our lives and the world in which we live.

         Before we can take action we must have the clear desire to take that action. The desire to take a new action to change our lives is usually the result of understanding that we have fallen into a habit or routine which is no longer serving us and must be corrected. When the possibility of disrupting these habits or routines causes us to experience a sensation of fear, then we have identified the mental obstacle to taking a first practical step. Thus it is important to understand our fear of change, to face it, and then place it aside. Once fear is no longer an influence over our ability to think clearly, we can soberly examine our situation. From a clear understanding of our circumstances, our desires become clear and rational thoughts, which we may then act on with lucidity.

       Without fear, and looking rationally at what we wish to change, we can think logically on how to achieve our desired result. We start by understanding clearly what we wish to achieve: the end result. Having a goal in mind, we begin to trace the steps needed to reach it. We avoid the temptation to dig too deeply into any one aspect; we realize that we will lose our mental momentum for change by focusing too much on particular details. At this stage we only map out the general route we will take to reach our destination. After this, we come to the conclusion of what step we must first take to reach our goal.

       When we have overcome our mental obstacles to taking a new action and we have gained a good understanding of what steps we must take to reach our goal, then the next key is to take the first step toward our desired goal.  It is important to recognize the opportunity that is inherent in the now. In every moment a new action can be taken if there is desire for that action. All change can be traced back to a choice for action which is made in one moment. The first step taken is often the hardest and most important as this is the moment the inertia of inaction is replaced by forward movement.  Once inertia is broken, each following step becomes easier. The secret to taking the first step to achieve a new goal is as simple as it is difficult: just do it.

       If we live in fear with a lack of self-awareness, then we live timid and contained lives that fall far short of our potential as human beings. Life is meant to be a journey which begins in one place with birth which then develops constantly until its conclusion. Change and constant development are fundamental to fulfillment in life. Though change is an essential part of our development which leads to real satisfaction, it is one of the most difficult aspects of life to master.  If we take the time and make the effort to face this challenge of life and then succeed in conquering it, we open a pathway to a true appreciation of the joy in being alive.  Our lives have the potential to be majestic, whether or not they are majestic is usually the result of our willingness to overcome our fear to take action or our willingness to simply accept things as they already are.

The Life of the Artist

       

       

       The life of an artist is an oddity in the modern world. It is common for young people to be encouraged to determine a career path from an early age and then to dedicate themselves to its development throughout the rest of their lives. The practicality of seeking a well paying career usually informs this choice, with passion for the selected role taking a secondary position of importance.  By contrast, those who are truly artists rarely choose to become artists. The need to follow the path of the artist is more of an internal pressure that forces them relentlessly to pursue the god of creativity. As a career, that of the artist is usually one that provides small financial compensation.

       Money has almost always been of concern when people have sought a direction in their lives. The modern world is predominantly a world of unbridled capitalism offering few alternatives to the pursuit of money as a direct path to self-actualization.  As a result, from an early age, our society expects young people to actively begin determining a career path which provides good financial compensation.  Having a passion for a particular career is considered to be a positive attribute of any career path chosen by a young person. However, if the choice is between doing what they love and making little money or doing something they hate but making a great deal of money, the advice is almost always in favor of  the young person making money rather than doing what they love.

       It is entirely possible that this preference for money over happiness is the source of a great deal of the misery in our world. It may be no coincidence that with the modern pursuit of money before all other things, we also have the development of the mid-life crisis; a phenomenon which was virtually unheard of until modern times.  As young people are pushed to select careers for the purpose of financial gain, many often find that as they have attained some degree of monetary success by middle age, they are unsatisfied with the condition and quality of their lives. Such a realization forces them to reconsider their choices and pushes them to pursue alternative directions which may be less financially beneficial, though far more psychologically rewarding.

       Financial gain as an artist is a rare achievement. Most artists do not receive enough money from their work to adequately support themselves. As such, for most artists, the motivation for becoming an artist has little to do with monetary compensation.  

       For some who are financially secure to start with, the life of the artist is a lifestyle. Those without the need to pursue money to support themselves cast about to find some interesting way to occupy themselves. For many of these, the dynamism of the world of art provides ample motivation to pursue art. If these do not find themselves having a natural inclination or talent for creation, money may provide them with the possibility of an expensive art education. With the subjective nature of art and having been educated in the basics of technique and art history, they find it relatively simple to pursue a career in culture. When the need to make a living is not a concern, then the pressure to create valuable or important works is also of little concern. For this type of professional artist, the creation of the work is an entertainment, and the lifestyle of the artist a way of giving one’s life a quantifiable characteristic which other people can readily recognize. This type of artist clearly chooses to be an artist. This is not to say that every artist having financial security is this kind of artist, but many are.

       Beyond the artists who have good access to money, there are those that do not and yet still pursue art. For many, financial concerns are as important to them as they are to those people who choose other more lucrative careers. And yet, despite a very good probability they will not do well financially as an artist, they feel compelled to pursue art anyway. Such people usually make this choice with complete lucidity in regard to the most likely outcome of their decision. For these people, the need to create is paramount. They are the artists that will create no matter the circumstance. If they do not have the financial possibility to attend art school, they will teach themselves. If they do not have the money for materials, they will take a job and buy art materials before they take care of other basic needs. If they do not have the ability to get a gallery showing for their work, they will save their own money and make a pop up showing in a rented space. For such artists, the relentless internal pressure within them to create is the source of their pertinacity. Their obdurate will in pursuing their work is the result of an absolute necessity to create.

       The two types of artists can be found throughout the history of art. In general, the former type of artist, in keeping with modernity, is most commonly found in our own times. As the world of art has become colonized by big business, the maxim that money goes to money, has become dominant. As a result, those who have access to large amounts of money tend to have the best chances in promoting themselves and obtaining gallery showings as well as to have interaction with collectors. By contrast, the later type of artist is less visible in the current context as the importance of money in achieving visibility limits their ability to do so when they do not have it. In previous times when the amount of money invested in the art world was much less, the chances of an artist gaining recognition when they were without great financial resources was better. When we look back into art history, though there are cases of those who were well-off becoming artists, we most often come across artists who began life without money and recognition and would later obtain these things exactly because of their pursuits in art.

       Given the importance of money to the modern world, and given its importance in achieving anything of consequence in the art world of today, it is remarkable to see the activities of these artists which choose to pursue art without the money to do so. As they continue with art under such circumstances, there is no doubt that if they could, they would rather do something else with their lives.  These artists follow the life of the artist from sheer need rather than simple choice.  It leaves one to wonder if in what they do, there may be a grander purpose that they themselves are not aware of.  What is very clear, beyond any speculation, is that in a world of money, the life of the artist, which is very much beyond the pretensions of financial stability, stands out in sharp contrast as a complete oddity.

To Trump a Trump

       With the recent state visit of the President of the United States to the U.K. and all of the media circus coverage of this event saturating us with details of his failures in protocol; as a change of pace we may reflect seriously on the past, present, and future of Trump as President as a new election cycle is already gaining momentum back in the states. It may be useful to first consider how we reached the present moment before then turning to the near future as Democrats begin their selection process to determine who will face-off against Trump in the 2020 election.

       From the early nineties with the election of Bill Clinton as president, there began a shift in what was expected from our politicians. With Bill Clinton’s predecessor George Bush, the period of the life long career of distinguished service, which culminates in the occupancy of the White House, came to an end. Clinton was elected as a breath of fresh air; he appeared to be a man more like us. He played the saxophone on television, he ate at McDonalds, he was slightly overweight; he spoke directly and warmly to individual people applying his policy points to their lives in relatable ways. For the baby boom generation he was their man of the people. 

       Where Bill Clinton appeared educated and fluid with his speaking, George Bush appeared limited in his vocabulary, slightly uninformed in regard to the world, and he would speak with a Texas drawl. Though he came from a family of privilege and political importance, his tendency for using unintended words, mispronunciation when speaking, and a general air of simplicity was appealing to many voters who saw him as relatable in his many flaws. 

       When the 2008 election cycle began, it became very clear that the expectations of the voting public were shifting dramatically. When Hillary Clinton began her first campaign for the presidency she was viewed as being the natural choice to return the United States to the former period of general peace and prosperity of the pre-Bush nineties.  Nevertheless, the fresh junior senator Barack Obama began to overtake her campaign with a message of change and hope. The momentum his campaign achieved made short work of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and then republican senator John McCain’s more traditional throw back campaign. When McCain attempted to introduce a more modern element into his campaign with the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, the move backfired as the public viewed this as a cynical attempt to appeal to more progressive tendencies.

       Obama was elected as the first black president of the United States. His election on a campaign of change spoke directly to a new generation of voters which were eagerly sought to elect young and dynamic politicians better representing their views. They were seeking some one that would help guide the country to a future that would be more inclusive, more responsive to their needs and would look more like their own aspirations.

       Following a history of families becoming political dynasties, years of war, a financial crisis which was catastrophic for average people while the rich managed to become richer, and eight years of partisan politics that lowered the political dialectic and caused political gridlock; the people had reached their limit with the political class.  

       As Trump launched his 2016 campaign for the presidency, he was an unconventional candidate that appeared to easily tap into the zeitgeist of the time.  As he joined in the republican debates, he would systematically reduce the debates to the level of personal insults and name calling. As different candidates would attempt to talk to point on various issues, Trump would effortlessly turn the subject of dialogue to himself , insult his competitors, and thus draw them off topic, effectively making the entire event about himself.  For those watching, even if they were not republicans, the spectacle of career politicians being relentlessly pummeled, insulted, and being shown to be incapable of outmaneuvering Trump’s bullying was spellbinding. Trump treated the other politicians exactly the way many Americans wished they could treat them. This in itself gained Trump a very large support. Based on his attacks against politicians and the Washington establishment, Trump was able to present himself as the right candidate to go to Washington and shake it up.

       When various stories of Trump’s previous inappropriate behavior would surface, his supporters would leave this aside as simply part of the character of an unconventional candidate. They did not support Trump for who he was toward women, or what he had done in his business dealings; they supported him because he would go to Washington and represent them against the political class. In this way, whatever else he had done, or would do, was of no great consequence. Trump for his part realized that as long as he gave his supporters what they wanted, he could do whatever he liked. 

       Hillary Clinton began her second attempt for the office of the presidency with the assumption that her time had come. She had studiously prepared herself and she had previously been promised that 2016 would be her year to be president. As she campaigned for the presidency it soon became apparent that Bernie Sanders was the most inspiring democratic candidate.  Sanders, though a long time Washington figure, campaigned far to the left of Clinton. In the same way Trump appealed to many republicans eager for a dramatic upset to the status quo, so Sanders appealed to democrats who felt betrayed by the political elite; those who felt that the politicians mainly pandered to the people to win an election only then to abandon the people to pursue policy that would mainly benefit those with money. The Democratic Party leadership manipulated its rules to diminish the effectiveness of the Sander’s campaign in favor of the Clinton candidacy. When this manipulation became public it hurt Clinton’s campaign as many democrats felt that it would be better not to vote for her or even in some cases to vote for Trump instead.

       When Clinton lost to Trump there was an immediate sense of shock in the Democratic Party followed by a prodigious amount of finger pointing as to who and what was responsible for the upset. Clinton in part blamed Bernie Sanders for pushing the Democratic discourse farther left from where she had historically stood as a politician. To blame Sanders that the policies he stood for were more in tune with what voters wanted pointed to the fact that Clinton was out of tune with what voters were looking for. Others blamed misogyny as the reason that Clinton lost. And yet, being a female candidate was one of the main reasons many were ready to vote for her. As a candidate Clinton focused a lackluster campaign in two areas unconnected with any policy: she was not Trump so people should vote for her, and she was a woman so they should elect her to be the first woman president. Though many did vote for her as an alternative to Trump and because she was a woman; she was unable to convince people that she would bring the seismic change to politics that they were searching for.  In short, Clinton did not inspire democrats as much as Trump inspired republicans.

       From the moment of Trump’s unexpected election, ineffectively, there has been a constant barrage of negative media against his presidency and his supporters. In shock, the media and a vocal public have documented each moment of his ineptitude for the role of President and the failings of his administration. He has been investigated for possible crimes surrounding his election and during his presidency. Every mistake he has made has been subjected to magnified criticism. Yet with the unprecedented amount of negative attention focused on him, absolutely none of it has seemingly had the slightest effect on the level of support he receives from his supporters. The more stringent the attacks become the more steadfast his supporters seem to be.

       There has naturally been increasing talk to impeach him, with many of the present democratic candidates advocating for this course of action. However, the current speaker of the house, the democrat Nancy Pelosi, has admonished her party to tread carefully in such a pursuit. She has noted that Trump himself seems to want the democrats in the House of Representatives to attempt to impeach him. From her standpoint, the benefits to Trump are several fold: if the democrats impeach him, then the republican controlled senate will most likely vote in his favor and thus the threat of impeachment will have been removed; the arguments that democrats resort to for impeachment will become irrelevant.  Trump will be able to point to the democratic effort to impeach him and use this as a rallying cry to bring his republican supporters together and to encourage them to vote for him again in 2020. The major consequence of the attempt to impeach Trump will most likely be to see him elected again for a second term as president.

       If Democrats want to effectively run against Trump and have a real chance to win, it is time that they take the lessons from the last 30 years and put them to good use. They must realize that the times have changed; people want candidates that truly talk to their issues and do not simply seek election to find a place among Washington elites. They want candidates that seek election to get things done, not simply to play political games. They want candidates that earn the people's vote with a strong proactive message that speaks to what the people are most concerned about. To win, candidates need to speak to embolden and uplift their supporters, not simply to seek the vote as a default alternative to the opposition. If the candidates believe they can win an argument with Trump, they will certainly lose; the way to beat Trump is to ignore Trump. If democrats continue to focus their energy on Trump instead of developing their own strong positions and visions that they can offer the voters, then they will be weak opponents when compared to Trump. For all the talk about how awful Trump is, he is actually very good at giving his supporters what they want, which is why they support him so strongly; democrats must do the same if they are going to have a real chance to beat him. 

       The political climate has radically changed over the last 30 years. Love him or hate him, Trump is very much a reflection of the actual state of politics at this moment. Though so many denigrate him and dismiss him, he has very effectively understood and actualized this understanding to accommodate the spirit of our times. Going forward, it would be more useful and to purpose for democrats to stop focusing on how horrified they are by Trump and start to get a grasp on what he actually does well, learn from it and apply it to their own candidacies; stop focusing on Trump and start focusing on what they can do for the people whose votes they seek.   

Unicorns

        Of the many categories of people we may meet in the world, one of the most intriguing types is one of the rarest, a kind of luminous and otherworldly personality. This type of personality seems to have a unique inner radiance that other people find to be magnetic. This rare individual seems permanently focused on what is the best in other people and about the world; they take what they see in other people and act on it making the lives of those people markedly better in the process.  As exceptional as would be a real life unicorn, these people resemble this mythological creature in their fragility and how the world usually reacts to them.

       These people are often very intelligent but rarely seem to learn from the negative encounters that they frequently have with other people. Though they may realize that particular people may potentially wish them evil, they refuse to treat anyone with suspicion. Rarely do they spend time thinking about how to avoid negative situations or take logical precautions to protect themselves.  They always approach people and the world as they believe people should be treated, as if the world was the best it could be.

       From negative encounters with people who are not honest or as well meaning as they are, they have many complicated experiences. From their hard experiences with people or in the world in general, these people often have difficult lives filled with disappointments. These disappointments tend to cut them more deeply than would be the case for most people; one of their characteristics is an unusual degree of sensitivity to life, other people and the world. Their openness to other people and to the world also leaves them open to the worst the world has to offer.  To their credit, these challenging experiences rarely change them; being true to their unusual nature, they cannot seem to live without always finding something beautiful in someone or in the world to focus their attention on. In this way they seem to uplift themselves and continue on.

      These people often make other people’s lives much better, through care, interest, or material support. Knowing such a person is almost always a very memorable experience that indelibly changes one’s life for the better. These people almost always have endless hours to stay and talk with others about their problems. When possible they are the ones to help their neighbors or friends out of the worst situations. When others are in need they tend to be the ones to give all they have in selfless sacrifice to help others overcome their difficulties. More than this, these people are true philanthropists, habitually helping complete strangers when no one else would. To a great extent it seems these people exist to truly make the world a better place.

       If we are living our lives thinking only of ourselves, it is possible that these people are the ones that are really taking care of our greatest needs without our awareness of their efforts. Their illuminated nature and the selfless activities that they engage in, which often do them no personal good, make them seem as if they really are from another world altogether.

       When we meet with these people, their very nature has the tendency to bring various aspects of our own personalities to the surface. We react to these people from what is really inside of us. There is something in their manner that will remind some of us of the time when we were children and so return to us a portion of the wonder that we once felt for life. For others these people are naïve, ridiculous, or lying and consequently they will treat them with all the mistrust, superiority, and incredulity of a truly cynical mind. In simply being whom and how they are, they separate us into two groups based on our own reactions to them.

       For those that are so lucky as to meet such people, and can appreciate their amazing qualities, do not doubt them.  Appreciate each moment with them and take what lessons their unique character offers. Regard them as the special people they are as they enlighten our world. Show them the kindness and consideration that they deserve.

A Taste of Brexit

         

                     The recent elections for the European parliament have been understood within the U.K. as a kind of long awaited reckoning for the major political parties over the handling of brexit. In the aftermath of the election there has been much talk about the failure of the governing conservatives to have a strong showing. Their support has been siphoned off to give a convincing win for Nigel Farage’s upstart no-deal probrexit party. 

                      While the conservatives clearly sustained the heaviest losses in this election, they were almost equally matched in losing by their main opponents: the Labour party.  The blood-letting for the two main parties was to be expected considering the road show spectacle of all things brexit.

                      Since the referendum which began this slow motion descent into political purgatory, both parties have been at a loss as how to proceed with brexit.  The conservative party has been divided in deciding how far the split with the European union should go: should it be a complete removal from all European treaties, followed by a renegotiation of particular deals that it would prefer to have with the European union; or should it be a partial split that would keep Britain in many of the preexisting European treaties involving trade and freedom of movement.  Adding into the brexit drama, it has been said that the former position would cost the country billions of pounds and cause severe hardships throughout British society, whereas the later position would keep Britain within the sphere of European control and thus negate the entire purpose of leaving the European Union. 

                      The difficulties for the conservatives in delivering brexit are obvious when it is clear that the party is divided in its view as to how to proceed with brexit.  Consequently, Nigel Farage’s new party has easily benefited when it has presented voters with a clear vision of a no deal brexit.

                     The most fascinating conundrum for those watching brexit unfold is the position of the Labour Party, or rather, lack of position.  The referendum which began brexit resulted in a near 50% split in voters supporting and opposed to brexit. The Labour Party, as the main opposition party to the conservatives that supported brexit, rather than offering a clear political alternative for the half of the country that opposed brexit, decided to support the idea of brexit.  As a result many third tier parties have gained an uncharacteristic level of support in the current European elections for the evident reason that they all oppose brexit.  

                     Interestingly, while Nigel Farage’s win as most popular single party is being celebrated as a sign that the people of Britain are demanding the brexit they voted for and have had enough with the politicians that seem incapable of delivering it; as the percentages of support for all parties in opposition to brexit are added together it becomes clear that a majority of the vote in this recent election was in fact against brexit.  With this in mind it becomes absurd that the main opposition party should not be clearly anti-brexit.

                     As a further development, Labour has finally reluctantly agreed that it will support a second referendum to allow the people to decide what the politicians have obviously been incapable of deciding on their own.

                       As anticipation of record setting negative results for the conservative party in this election prompted the Prime Minister to offer her resignation, it has come time for new leadership in the Labour Party as well. 

                      As demonstrated by Nigel Farage’s unprecedented win, the great lesson from this election should be that the people expect their leaders to have clear positions.