The Root of Political Turmoil
   
   
   Like most men I ignore almost all artistic expression and so am fairly
easygoing about the feelings it evokes in me unless I have an obvious
crisis to deal with. I believe that the bad feelings expressed as political
turmoil arise from mostly unintended artistic expression of unmet presumed
entitlements.
   I studied this while portraying a feminine style identity, in an attempt
to comprehend women. While I was copying women I ruthlessly covered all
artistic expression that I objected to with some of my own. Daily I cleaned,
organized and rearranged the areas that I shared with others, without
negotiation. I utterly dominated all conversation and physical gesturing of
any sort that occurred in my presence. No one ever objected and I presume
this is because art as a rule is a blessing to everyone, and entirely a
beneficial influence. Oddly, I was unconditionally at ease with all human
expression at the time, short of direct violence. I also never had any sad
or bitter feelings to express, no "unmet entitlements", and I left nothing
to chance in my expression, both in my effluent and my reflection of other
people. None of the dozen or so people I lived with reflected something in
my personal art or effluent that I felt regret or helpless horror about.
   Those around me were not so deliberate in how they presented to the
human moshe and had to face daily a barrage of upseting demands and
unfortunate personal reflection. Many of them attempted to enlist me in
censorship of our associates, and censorship of the expression from the
whole living realm, in order to reduce the inevitable need to analyze or
process the demands and their own regretable unhandled aspects. They also
sought to avoid having to engage a massive counter expression as I was
doing, out of fatigue or disinterest in the personal contact involved.
   This, in my view, shows the root of all political turmoil, on all scales
of human society. The bad feelings arise from "artistic" expression about
unmet presumed entitlements, "art" that reflects or dramatizes the unintended
but vivid expressions of those the artist observes, and unintended artistic
impact of effluent; or restated: political activism, clowning, and garbage.
Political activism forces the development of intellectual maturity, clowning
forces the development of emotional maturity and garbage forces both.
   Other peoples' deliberate art evokes feelings in me that I presume are
similar to what they felt that inspired the art. Someone feeling sad or
bitter will tend to produce art that makes me feel likewise if they produce
any art at all. If I happen to have a very similar feeling at the time then
I am inspired to encourage them. Otherwise I embrace only art from what I
view as positive feelings, and I actively upstage or destroy all other art.
   In response to the immense range of human egos I have broadened my use of
the word art to include every aesthetic expression. Even random conversation
and the crap in someone's front yard has become art if their ego is
intentional and defensive about it. The variety of styles that various
people refer to as deliberately positive can also take literally any form,
so political turmoil looks to be the unfortunate mix of both collateral
effects (as from a horse taking a dump) and directly opposing styles.
   The basic political issue can be stated as: how can the bad feelings
evoked by other peoples' ghastly emotional interests and "unfinished
activities" (tasteless or unintended aesthetic expression) be dealt with
without attack or rejection of their character?
   
 
 
   Political turmoil inspires considerable moralizing. I have heard or read
many different views of what is legitimate exploration, what is timely
progress, what is a condition of completeness, and what are the legitimate
boundaries of a given assessment. For myself I also have a priority on being
able to go to sleep without anger. Many other people seem similiarly
concerned. Our views tend toward promoting a speedy resolution of whatever
feelings promote grim daydreaming or paranoia.
   Unfinished activities very often appear to me to be a deliberate social
remark or declaration of defiance against another view, an emotional
exploration in disquise. Shy people reach out using obvious unfinished
activities, often without being conscious of it. Sometimes grief is
expressed symbolically with a visible tragedy, also often without conscious
intent. Peoples' activities are like their use of language. A total
foreigner is easier for me to be diplomatic with because of my premise that
I lack a complete understanding of what they are expressing. I establish
beliefs about the expressions of familiar people in order to streamline my
relations with them and then am loathe to compromise efficiency through an
unbiased hearing, especially with people who have a history of grief or
anger expression.
   If liberty is defined as the right to express unconditionally then I
think liberty is the poison of elegant society. I believe that in America we
are estranged by our need for beauty in a sea of disorganized choreography.
The personal liberty of others forces me to tolerate their ghastly
expressiveness and be satisfied entirely with commercial sources for
beautiful expression, and then to go "home" to isolation with commercial
offerrings. For this reason I advocate liberty only on the big scale,
outside the County. If the people next door chafe about my liberty that is a
crisis, likewise if I am unable to find any feeling I like in their art.
   Thus I have become obsessed with cataloguing my artistic tastes in hope
of consciously directing local fad artistic focus:
 
  --Items which are new imply ecological rape to some degree and their
    unnecessary purchase expresses an indifference to this.
  --One person's gold is another's garbage so any gift or remark must be to
    someone who is unquestionably wishing for it; or conversely: art or
    garbage is a territorial claim on the part of the person depositing it
    and so it's an invasion if it isn't prearranged. Randomly visible words
    and randomly placed personal items are always psychically invasive.
  --All art in my territory is classable as my expression regardless of who
    created it.
  --My prohibition of someone else's art, inside of what we both define as
    their territory, is a rejection of their existence, of their present
    emotional and spiritual condition, not a negotiative effort.
  --Money, marriage and other formal systems are a declaration of emotional
    infidelity or emotional nonaccountability between those people
    involved.
  --Grief and bitterness have no place in artistic expression ever, except
    that which remains secret or that which is a desperate appeal for help.
  --My definitions of symbolism apply only to my art.
   
  I generally take the view that tasteless art is an expression of desperate
spiritual destitution, or an S.O.S. of some kind, whether conscious or not.
Art that makes me feel bad I take as a challenge to my compassion, and a
demand for my declaration of incompetence or indifference if I can't be
constructive. I overtly make the declaration, at least to myself, so that I
won't lose sleep over it. In facing the limits of my own warmheartedness I
have become easier with that of others, so I lose less sleep over that as
well.
   Tasteless art has become for me the meter of the evolutionary status of
the human race rather than a form of conscious neglect on anyone's part. I
feel no spirit of alliance with those who fight people whose art horrifies
me.  And likewise I take no blame for my weakness. I will express my best
art and that will pass my inspection. If at all possible I hope not to be
actually part of the root of political turmoil around me even at the cost
of appearing to be.
   The role of political and choreographic leadership in this gets quite
blurred for me. A video of the early Beatles on Youtube is the same class of
engagement, in my understanding of human drama, as the presidential
candidate speech by Fred Thompson to the Iowa voters. Mr. Thompson and the
Beatles are leading a fantasy emotional portrayal, similiar to what a
common sexual prostitute does. Though they make their presentation look as
guileless as possible, it seems so logically ridiculous and yet showing
such profound intelligence in delivery that I have to presume they are
actually sly, feigning dinginess to be cute and inspire warmth.
   The Beatles and Mr. Thompson are taking a role I provide for myself by
walking on the bikepath pretending to have an animated and sincere
discussion with an actual antagonist who I portray as sincerely as possible.
But whereas my activity engages other people only indirectly, the shared
form creates innumerable choreographic echos and new fad effects that can
make for a continual increase in public angst and desire; and also seed
serious confusion generally about what is spiritually and socially actual.
   The presentors lead an artificially narrow emotional focus for the sake
of convulsive release and emotional exploration on the part of the
listeners, who each focus on the presentor in a hypnotic embrace that ignors
the genuine life focus of other people right at hand around them.
Significantly, the genuine life focus of the Beatle band members and the
candidate gets neglected or even straight up derided as well, with no
possible recourse. Their obvious stress and confusion about that pains me to
watch, but many people scream with delight as they embrace and join the orgy
of portrayal.
   When I was in theatre, the footlights of the stage completely divorced
me from actual emotional contact with anyone watching me, and the highly
programmed script made eye contact with my associates unneccesary, making
it much easier for me to hold onto the portrayal I was doing. Even in a well
lit room, as a guitar playing singer in a religious band, I was able to be
quite acceptable to the listeners and other band members while completely
avoiding eye contact.
   The public portrayal themes that I've seen, both playful and serious,
seem to be inspired by cultural fads with very mixed alliegence. Inevitably
many people are left cold and inspired to derision about any particular
fad, becoming a psychic risk for any presentor who uses it. The presentors
can get quite challenged with how to be more effective in evoking
encouragement or how to sway the fad focus into some style that feels more
natural to present. Being always a clearly amateur presentor, in a fairly
sophisticated choreography of other people, I was never under high pressure
from an audience to meet any sort of criteria, or be better in some
undefined way.
   Watching the psychic brawl among the rock and roll band members
practicing at my house, and depicted in the Beatles "Let It Be" story in
Wikipedia, shows clearly to me how hard it can be to maintain an artificial
character portrayal and an actual emotionally accountable association at the
same time. Frequent public performance appears to be essential to keeping a
positive rapport in a presentor group. After four years without a public
show, the Beatles were straight up ugly during their rooftop presentation.
The band at my house could hardly keep the same members two months without a
public show.
   A book called Daughters of Copper Woman describes a traditional practice
among several indian tribes of the northwestern United States that
translates crudely as a semi-religious social role referred to by some
people as a clown. The purpose of the clown role is to facilitate emotional
maturation of everyone through overt specific relection of current inane
behavior. Some other people use the word trickster instead, and that strikes
me as closer to the actual role. What the clown or trickster would do was
socially invasive, embarrassing, conceptually mocking reflection of those
they were directly relating to, in an effort to diffuse political turmoil
by promoting emotional maturation.
   Based on the descriptions of clown activity in the Copper Woman book,
the indian clowns were inadvertantly highly effective saboteurs of
commercial initiative. Done with Europeans, this inevitably got them
murdered or driven into staying unknown. Regular descriptions of indian
culture generally exclude discussion of them. Indians highly revered a clown
though and some, who can accept the resulting poverty, may still be
encouraging the tradition (out of sight of non-indian culture) as a means to
keep everyone involved emotionally maturing and developing, even as adults.
   Realistically, the presentors in my culture are doing the same kind of
embarrassing conceptual mockery, but pretending to be talking straight
about the concerns of their listeners or pretending to be portraying their
own feelings in a manner inviting the mockery of their listeners. Thus they
offer a very watered down form of indirect feedback, requiring the listener
to visualize the connective link to their own life, and thus allowing the
listener to maintain their own personal illusions about self-importance.
   The screams and contorted faces of the teenage girls who came to see the
Beatles express to me the result of those girls using the presentation for
an emotional springboard into a cathartic and educational visualization
specific to their own lives, similiar to what I do through writing an
article like this. Though some of them appear self conscious about doing
that in the presense of other people, most seem adequately encouraged by the
concensus of acceptance in the screaming audience, and the friendly
reverence of the Beatles.
   I believe that the Beatles wrote and sung songs that deliberately
portrayed the petty teenage social and spiritual obsessions of the people
they knew. They may have had similiar obsessions themselves, but I doubt
that they focused on that. Nevertheless, they always presented their songs
as if deadpan seriously expressing their own feelings, with no obvious
tongue in cheek; even in their final gig on the rooftop. The insane irony of
John Lennon singing "Don't Let Me Down", with soulful expression, on the
eve of his split from the Beatles, after months of grimness, is completely
left out of all commentary and presentations. Never are the Beatles
encouraged, or even allowed, to present an unrehearsed, out of the closet
reflection of their direct audience (as opposed to their friends), or even
make obvious that they were portraying only other people's feelings.
   The Beatles themselves may very well have been unaware of their value
for emotional maturation. Even though the teenage girls in the audience
show vividly the catharsis of their self discovery using the emotion evoked
in them by the songs, the fellows on the stage seems puzzled by it, as
guileless as children. When relating like a girl myself, I was never
inclined to feed conceptual confusion with similiar cathartic outburst in
the presense of conceptually identified people. I still tend to discourage
that and avoid situations where it happens, though women doing it in a
private venue with a female band seems like a very good idea.
   I also believe that my own publically presented political remarks must
fall short of unambiguous social reflection of specific people, to avoid
attack from people who didn't volunteer to be reflected and violently
object. To illustrate, I have conpiled a list of laundered controversial
statements about science and social philosophy.
   Publically presented science and philosophy appears to have degenerated
in recent years back into the confusion of quakery and propaganda that
religion once demanded. But it is still possible to ascertain some level of
scientific or philosophical certainty through a thorough polling of the
entire jury of informed people on an issue to find some statements of
presumed facts that have at least the condition of no detractors.
   The following controversial statements are nevertheless agreed upon by
everyone I've gotten feedback from who held any strong views at all about
the matter presented:
 
  - Someone with a political view to express that inspires them so
powerfully that suicide could be part of their expression, such as the man
who burned himself to protest the war in Vietnam, is always an appeal to a
matter of serious moral significance to people generally, and never a
self-centered focus.
  - The traditional ethics of warfare holds that if a soldier goes into
danger in behalf of their political viewpoint, then even the murder of
other people representing an opposing viewpoint can be considered not a
crime but instead a legitimate form of debate presenting an issue of
presumed moral significance to everyone, particularly if the attack is
suicidal.
  - The murders of Charles Manson's associates, the murders reputed to have
been done by a secret world government, and most of the school shootings,
terrorist attacks, and attempted terrorist attacks, on the public record,
meet the criteria for consideration as legitimate morally motivated acts of
war by soldiers going into grave danger; and all of them inspired a
significant minority to applaud the attack based on that outlook.
 
  - If WTC7 was destroyed without the use of demolition explosives, and
without deliberate action on anyone's part, then it would have fallen at
substantially less than freefall speed, it would have broken apart
asymetrically including some large intact areas, and at least one person
would have been seriously injured when it fell.
  - If WTC7 was destroyed by deliberate demolition then the almost
identical collapse of the larger towers was also, the airplanes were
unneccesary for the purpose of damaging the buildings, the people
responsible were clearly not on the airplanes; and if those people had been
foreign terrorists they could have and would have killed at least 50,000
people with the event.
 
  - Deliberate clinical trials have established that use of antibiotic or
chemotherapy medicine consistently for two years or more, serious long term
starvation or extreme malnutrition, catastrophic long term anxiety, or
several years of sustained intestinal yeast overgrowth or infectious
illness, will often result in extreme immune system failure similiar to AIDS
but unrelated to HIV infection.
  - No double blind clinical trial has ever proven that HIV causes AIDS.
  - If a group of people are living entirely on donated refined
carbohydrate, or poisoned by water deliberately mixed with sewage, or dosed
with a carcinagen, or given a regular vacine dosed with mercury, the
resulting illness can be called AIDS, and thus dodge political focus on
what really caused the problem.
  - The medical and public acceptance of AIDS is of great benefit to any
people who require a legal cover for a depopulation effort.
  - Someone with AIDS, and dying of bacterial disaster can be temporarily
rescued by a small dose of AZT (DNA chain terminator medicine) because
bacterial infection survives by very frequent cell division, and is thus
highly vulnerable to AZT. Though the immune system itself also involves
very frequent cell division, someone with AIDS has already lost most immune
cell activity.
   
  - Consistant use of amphetamines or similiar intense stimulants is quite
physically addictive and leads to sleep deprivation, resulting in potential
criminal psychotic hallucination in many people.
  - Long term use of antidepressant drugs has been clinically shown to
promote noticable emotional apathy in a majority of people.
  - 10 percent or more of school age children are currently on a long term
daily prescription for amphetamine or antidepressants or both, and heavy
use of coffee or soda pop among adults is expected and routinely part of
most public engagement.
  - Most parents and childcare workers publically exhibit humiliating
tyrannical dominance of their children, and solicit behavior using offers of
food made of a highly processed combination of sugar, milk and white flour.
  - Intensive sugar consumption, food allergy (particularly to milk and
wheat), and humiliating tyrannical dominance have all been clinically shown
to cause significant mental illness in children, but parents nearly always
respond to childhood mental illness with an escalation of humiliating
tyrannical dominance or offers of refined food, and psychiatrists nearly
always respond to childhood mental illness with a prescription for
amphetimines or antidepressants.
  - The best reported children who engaged in school shootings are known to
have been using psychiatric prescription drugs and suffering significantly
from humiliating tyrannical dominance.
 
  - Sexual maturity occurs in virtually everyone's body prior to the age of
14, and the emergence of sexual curiosity and intent is very common in both
sexes following that change.
  - Focus on sexual interest by someone of either sex causes fluid pressure
in the groin which if sustained for several hours without release can
frequently result in severe abdominal pain that lasts for several hours,
inspiring either the inclusion of sexual release in any sustained focus on
sexual interest or a complete suppression of sexual focus.
  - In the interest of facilitating suppression of sexual focus by
children, all permitted sexual activity and expression is required to be
done in hidden circumstances, and everyone of any age or condition of focus
is required to keep their sexual parts hidden unless in a carefully
choreographed setting.
  - Being in the presense of someone having an orgasm is no more emotionally
compelling and no more potentially injurious psychologically than a mean,
angry tirade.
  - A focus on a clearly harmless and fairly amazing form of experience
that is arbitrarily prohibited will inspire a great number of people of any
age to work around the prohibition.
  - Unintended pregnancy and heartbreaking confusion in passionate
relationships are less prevalent among people of any age who have access to
intelligent feedback about their sexual exploration from uninvolved other
people.
  - Anyone who participates in the sexual exploration of a woman under the
age of 18 risks devastating prosecution, regardless of the feelings of the
woman, putting a serious curse on her development that way. Likewise anyone
over the age of 18 participating in the sexual exploration of a man under
that age runs the same risk. Thus teenagers of both sexes are required by
law not to be sexually interactive.
  - Masturbation, even in secret, is a prohibited activity in most
religious traditions, and spoken of very derisively by many people who
don't outright prohibit it.
  - Virtually everyone engages their initial exploration of sexuality in a
manner that is illegal or a great risk of heavy ridicule, and generally
tainted by an element of rebellion or lawlessness that confuses the
resulting feelings and colors their relation to sexuality for the rest of
their life.
   
  - The use of unbacked fiat currency, such as the U.S. Federal Reserve
Note, ended what had been a steady pattern of tragic economic dislocations
every 15 to 30 years since the invention and use of paper currency.
  - Everyone who lives entirely within their means becomes steadily
wealthier, regardless of their initial level, and regardless of the
fortunes and money morality of their society.
  - The borrowing of major capital assets, or money to obtain them, and
agreeing to pay a rent or interest charge, is a short-sighted attempt to
live beyond one's means that inescapably reduces one's net wealth potential
in the long run by introducing a new significant expense.
  - As long as everyone keeps their money in a bank somewhere and not in
literal circulation, any bank can pretend to loan a great deal of money
they don't have in physical paper money, charging interest for what amounts
to an accounting service rather than an actual loan of a physical capital
asset.
  - If a borrower defaults on an unsecured bank loan of pretended money, no
immediate disaster will occur as long as the loaned money is spent using
bank checks that are redeposited back into the bank, rather than held as
physical paper money; but, though the initial money was ficticious, the
resulting debt is a real theft from the bank. The bank will still owe the
pretended money to those who it was spent with and will have to recover from
the genuine financial loss by obtaining actual income.
   
   Most political commentary by non-politicians looks to me to be an
attempt at a similiar inoffensive restating of controversy. I believe that
Fred Thompson is forced even more than I, by political expedience, to speak
as if he takes seriously the political inanity of the Republican Party, with
it's Bill of Rights and minimal taxation financed social entitlements,
instead of representing himself and his own genuine idealism and life
direction, not because he's evil but because he's unique.
   It is my belief that every politician faces an overwhelming majority, of
both constituents and other leaders, who overtly oppose their ideals and
life direction, and will marginalize or even murder them in response to
sincerity. While Mr. Thompson does do his best to convey his real intent to
those willing to do a bit of data processing, he is clearly not welcome in
my culture as the enormously valuable social reflector that he is. The
rabble he faces force his actual nobility to be seriously obscured, forcing
me to guess at his meaning in many ways.
   He apparently must also never mention any coercive pressure from business
and military people. In his speech he makes clear his encouragement of the
official story of the 911 event; and his advocacy of the Patriot Act
(gutting the Bill of Rights) and the catastrophic expense of the predatory
Middle Eastern war. Towards the end of his talk he suggests that his
impeccable record as an honest politician could win over the votes of
Democrats listening in on his presentation.
   All of the politicians appear to approve of the coercion of meek and
apathetic people. This is as I would expect, that anyone approving of
unconditional citizen autonomy is unlikely to seek the authority position
of being a politician. The coercion of the meek is even approved by many of
those expressing opposition to American fascist or other government
expanding political effort, as being what the meek deserve. Some have
explicitly presented some version of the quote attributed to Ben Franklin
saying that anyone trading liberty for security deserves neither and (by the
effort of Mr. Franklin and his associates) will lose both. Even Peter
Defazio cannot explicitly say that he approves of the suppression of citizen
autonomy, (viewing it as a kind of irresponsibility). He must instead leave
his view implied by endless appeals to increase government oversight and
babysitting programs.
   I find it almost impossible to distinquish between those who did the 911
event and those who applaud or quietly capitalize on the political
conseqences. It was such a huge political boon to so many political and
business leaders pressing for greater social straight-jacketing, both
inside and out of the modern countries, and for greater political
suppression of anti-industrial spirituality, where very expensive resources
are at stake.
   Nearly every political, media or business leader has overtly expressed
encouragement that I accept that the entire 911 event was done by a small
group of foreigners with box knives. Given that the cell phone talk that
originated the box knife story is potentially a hoax, I'm inclined to think
no foreigners were involved in any way. A recent major national poll
determined that 84% of Americans are unconvinced by the official story and
a third are certain that Americans did the deed. I find it hard to imagine
that the more highly informed people in leadership are actually more
confused about the matter, I would say instead that they have a concensus
of disrepect of the public that the public forbids them to express.
   I am fairly accepting of their disrespect. I don't see myself as
entitled to the Bill of Rights or private property or any other sort of
liberty. I offer it to everyone else, but as an unconditional gift, not a
trade. I am not going to assign myself the heinous duty to defend
entitlements. I have heard countless stories from associates about wrongs
done to them by opportunist individuals and by bureaucracies, but so far
it has all seemed to me on a scale of whining about trivia, not something I
need to avoid, certainly not at the cost born by the original American
revolutionaries, many of whom were rendered paupers or died.
   A friend of mine recently told me of a theory, by some internet writers,
of a coming military coup and genocide in the United States, similiar to
the German takeover by the Nazi Party. On the contrary, I see a modern trend
worldwide towards use of financial and propaganda approaches to predation,
due to higher profit in the long run, and use of minority strife to keep
the political focus off of trouble-making leaders. Nearly all of the
small manufactured goods and quite a portion of the vegetables available to
me now are made in China, a non-democratic country that appears to have
never inspired military focus from Americans, I believe due to the ease of
financial exploitation.
   The Middle East is an area uniquely endowed with an expensive resource
and a very tenacious cultural tradition abhoring consumerism; making it very
resistant to non-violent predation. So far the violent approach doesn't look
all that successful either, in spite of a clear majority of Moslems who take
my view of the predation. There are relatively few "insurgents" but even
fewer who are willing to rat on insurgents.
   America isn't like that. There are almost no militant insurgents, and
nearly the entire population is willing to rat on even non-violent trivial
insurgents. The 911 event inspired the compilation of a list of some
100,000 American names of people without criminal record but classed as
potential insurgents, who must be searched thoroughly if they seek to ride
in an airplane. Some three million Americans are currently in jail or on
parole, mostly due to cultural expressions that neighbors objected to. A
genocide against those people might be tolerated by most Americans, but
the "free country" myth would be lost and an easy scapegoat for social
problems eliminated, resulting in less trouble for regular Americans and
more trouble for their leaders.
   I can see fear of the coup and genocide being useful though, to the
predatory leadership people. Virtually every politically concerned person
I've known is quite rootless enough to consider leaving the country. With a
financial advantage in most of the rest of the world, and mastery of the one
language most widespread worldwide. I think seeding fear of a genocide may
be a very cheap way to achieve a society free of serious opponents without
the label of being intolerant.
   My internet reading about concentration camp preparation suggests that
the websites originating the idea either involved people who did very
little real research or else people who were lying about their concern. So
far I have not read an account of a place identified by one source and
visited in person by another who then verified suspicious aspects. Several
identified places have been visited by a second person and determined to be
unimpressive.
   I have read verifiable accounts about FEMA preparations for mass
detention similiar to what happened for hurricane Katrina and for military
camps for convict workers, and the executive orders related to FEMA clearly
authorize human rights abuses. The record of civilian harrassment in
Afganistan and Iraq is quite verifiable and ghastly, particularly on the
part of non-American military people, and the American detention camp on the
island of Cuba is the subject of considerable world activist outrage for
human rights abuses.
   But more important, there appears to be a publically acknowledged major
conflict of political direction between the Bush Administration and the
American military commanders charged with carrying out actual predatory
activity. Soldiers in Iraq or considering re-enlistment are offerred a lot
of money, but still often express serious misgivings about the moral
legitimacy of the war. Obtaining a willing and large enough military force
to do a large scale fascist domination and genocide in America seems
impossible. The war against the use of spiritual exploration drugs has been
successful at motivating enforcement personnel, but not involving execution
to any great degree.
   I observe a net increase in general emotional maturity, at least of
those in actual leadership roles. Many have suggested that current world
leadership is an autonomous society, independent of, and possibly
indifferent to, the rest of us. I would expect that to be the case. Almost
everyone I know registers compassion only for those they directly can
imagine being. So like most everyone I know peronally, I would expect that
society of leaders to deliberately seed political turmoil to some extent at
least as a way to make life interesting, and partly as a way to draw
criticizing attention away from them and towards other people.
   I certainly am not inclined to claim moral higher ground with the
community of my own society setting the same example, through rash physical
ambition and scapegoating and gossip and calling the city government
enforcement people. Through my own "artistic" expression I am
unquestionably a major source of political turmoil myself, in spite of what
I perceive as a huge effort not to be.
   
   
   
                         Return to Homepage