To paraphrase Petyr Baelish’s very sound advice, when I say, hear or read a statement I find incongruous I like to play a little game I called consequences. The game has only one rule, although to be honest it’s not really a rule more an assumption, that however far I, my friends, my acquaintances, might be inclined to take a proposition, idea or consideration there is ever going to be someone somewhere who is willing to take the notion and run with it to an extreme beyond anything we can imagine.
For example, say someone decides that the mechanism chosen to deal with a particular facet of a crisis is unacceptable. They take it within their personal purview to complain, to worry, to make the problem central rather than periphery, a matter of such impending consequence as to overshadow the original difficulty completely. Suddenly they might find themselves amidst a group with similar concerns who perceive the world, the universe presenting similar dangers, threats , holds on their individual freedoms. That group transmutes quite naturally from loose knit melding to an organization following a wholly erroneous concept , a carefully constructed but nevertheless false flag.
Such an organized force, however loosely conjoined would now, having some strength in numbers and deciding quite rightly that they wished to be recognized for their joint perspective designate for their new, good, shiny and bright idea, perhaps at the behest of some previously almost anonymous miscreant, to employ some form of outgoing identification, ideally something simple, perhaps a garment everyone possesses within their wardrobe, say a ‘T’, a loose fitting top, a cardigan, jacket, shirt, all of a similar nondescript color most would already possess, something nondescript, nonthreatening, bland, say white, perhaps gray, a navy shade, even that ever most easily available option, black, because of course all will possess at least one standby blackshirt.
Problem being of course how do you designate your particular ‘original’ group from the multiple other posse parading around the block. The most obvious method some bright spark suggests, probably someone particularly good at marketing or art, an idea or even brand person, is to adopt some sort of symbol that represents the very finest ethical values of your movement, perhaps religious, but only quasi-religious, something old, very old, visually striking but with no connection to the participants values, reflecting half forgot half familiar aspects, perhaps Celt, maybe Aztec, Mayan, even Aryan.
Every problem has a solution, every question has an answer, unfortunately in many circumstances the panacea holds far more terrible consequences than the challenge. Mankind is inclined to mix science, philosophy and religion into an unpalatable and wholly indigestible compote, particularly when the matter at hand falls somewhere amidst the triumvirate of all wisdom.
Individuals are inclined to suggest they are acting from necessity, from good purpose, for best intent, when in reality they are reacting but to fear, for self-interest and perceived survival. A world infected is still a world obliged to cut, run and hide. We are presently witnessing a globe populated by individuals truly scared of their own shadows. Such moments are inclined to result in epic recoveries, admirable reconstructions, the very best and brightest of our capabilities, they can also manifest in dark and evil times illustrating the very worst of human failings and weaknesses.
History is a subject we study in the hopes of echoing from out triumphs and shedding our failures. Unfortunately mankind is weak and in turmoil tends to retreat to the baser of our instincts. We forget we are but apes, a mere few millennia from the treetop, feet not yet adapted to walk flat upon the beckoning but ever threatening earth below.