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.

Anathema, the Project

        The motivation behind this project is simple: to present a series of art works in the form of an exhibition which illuminates the concept of the ambiguous nature of our nations, our history, our individualism, and the public personalities of the people who have shaped our world.  The impetus for this project has come from living in a period of time where society has seemly taken a step backwards, becoming less cohesive and more fractured; where groups stand categorically in opposition to their opponents with a zero sum mentality informing the dialectic; ironically, each group seemingly views itself as having moral authority and absolute possession over some absolute truth, and yet this happens in the era of “fake news” where perception is more important than fact.  Viewing this period from a side, it seems that most opposing groups are not truly trying to achieve a result in the pursuit of an ideal, but rather to see their opponents lose. The desire to simply win at any cost has become the cause of an increasing divide between all segments of society, having led to a situation where vital issues and real problems which all people face go unresolved from a lack of cooperation.  In this context, in recent times, issues surrounding nations, history, and individualism have become flash points for conflict with various sides taking extreme positions. Again from the side, looking on at this situation, only the ambiguity of these issues stands out; the lack of anything absolute is really their chief characteristic. When the ambiguity of these issues is realized, that each issue can actually be viewed in multiple ways, that each group can actually be equally right and wrong at the same time, the basis for a deep and un-amicable argument dissipates.  It thus becomes the motivation for this project to show the ambiguity in these issues, black and white, good and evil simultaneously, without taking anyone’s part in any argument. The project seeks to provide in its limited fashion, an example of why there is little need for our current conflict, but rather the simple need to acknowledge that while one may have his or her personal view that may be very correct, others may also have their own which may be equally correct.