Is the strength to steal a crust
from your indifferent overlords,
when you live in a death camp,
greater or weaker than the impulse
to give said crust to the person
who is clearly more hungry,
and far more tired, than yourself?
Many have said that 'Politics is a dialogue for the deaf'
an (in)activity where it pays a partisan politician
to misquote the opposition, as if mishearing those
out of power is good for avoiding consensus.
But since most losses of hearing, sight, and other senses
are both rarely intended and rather hard to adapt with,
then these dialogues will make the Politics Of Division
seem like a series of nasty accidents,
where the few seek to rule the future
of the many through mere misfortune.
1-Not only have you lost the will
to keep up with popular music,
but you can't remember when
your one time favourite artists
made music that refreshed their profile
and surprised both their public and critics.
2-Forgetting who was the spokesman
for your generation, Bob Dylan?
Pete Townshend? Jerry Garcia?
or for younger people Morrissey,
or Billy Bragg. Because with age
their generation lost what set them apart
from what surrounded them.
The very idea of a leader whose music
personified their leadership died
when print media lost it's primacy.
Wanting to be both popular and right
has always the height of hypocrisy-
the words of world leaders prove this.
That is why I accept belief in God;
his inconsistencies echo all human life,
all writ large enough to be recognizable
but too large to be commonly understood;
Omniscience, Omnipresence and Omnipotence
have always been impossible to combine with each other.
Any two of them combine together quite well,
but getting the third to fit in is what makes it harder
to sustain with goodwill and logic, in faith.
I live for insight; let my mistakes be visible,
and let me know beyond seeing,
that there is a life in the world to come.
'If you'd listened to my earlier point... '
'X's plans do not add up... '
'Hard working.... '
'Ordinary working families... '
and last, but far from least,
'Strong and stable government'
1-loathing the bureaucracies
that offer you every advantage
for the complete modern home.
Preferring instead to discover
your own solutions to your needs,
as compared with how society defines you.
2-Being quite flattered by sales pitches
for new products that meet old needs,
but never quite flattered enough
to want to buy the thing being sold much.
The sales pitch is more fun than the product,
and neither is fresh enough to persuade you.
Nearly seventy years ago male doctors first prescribed 'the pill'
to the most 'liberated' of British married women, those freer of will,
free of their husbands insistence that they have more children.
Now those same male scientists have men erect for longer
in advancing age with yet another pill, and still the choices
that men give themselves make them seem more potent
than they ever were, the more to deny the choices of others.
For many years I have been fascinated
by the symbol of the snake that eats its tail,
as a symbol of the circularity of life
contained in the myth of Ouroboros.
I first found mention of it
in writings about The Grateful Dead
as they made different recordings
on different illicit substances,
all of which they eventually quit
when they learnt how to write tunes.
It seems apt then to rediscover the myth
through Ritalin, a drug given to chidren
who are defined by doctors as having A.D.H.D.
What is the health of children worth
when the companies that sell the drugs
control the doctors, who the parents have to trust,
little knowing who the doctors are a mouthpiece for?
I realized that The Apocalypse
is merely going to be God finding the switch
that turns the world off, and having pressed it once
he will turn the world on again, just like we do
with the disposable every day electronics,
with which we surround ourselves with nowadays
when it is our only way of testing and resetting them.
On 'The Fall' and choice in life general-
choice always produces arguments and waste.
The greatest freedom of choice
is the length of the arguments
designed to produce one winner.
The winners of the arguments
will always conflate loss with waste,
then blame the losers for 'being wasteful'
for disagreeing with them for so long
as if their triumph might have been clearer
were the arguments before it shorter.
Faking omniscience is like faking news,
both 'game' the facts and gamble
on the credulity of the audience,
whose choice is reduced to acceptance.