We cannot fight the effective principle. It is my view that even the 'controllers' are just sitting in a seat that is predefined. There is no deviating from the 'runaway train syndrome' of the group mind. We repeat it over and over again, over many thousands of millennia. History is rewritten and new lots are drawn and the cream always rises to the surface. The toughest, whatever that is in an age, always win.

But much can be said for respect of innocence.

I see this as the contradiction of survivalist mentality. In the times, in our many ages when innocence is respected and the vulnerable are allowed to flourish, new ways of existing have been born - ways not dependent on the 'dog eat dog' default reality.

Survival when held so tightly by the strong, runs away from them.

The weakest of us have been genius minds not born into the cream. A greater chance of survival can therefore be had in the respect of innocence. But there must always be a compromise, a balance, like in anything - to maintain the effective principle, otherwise it would just collapse in on itself and we start again out of nothing.

Leaders take a lot on themselves and most people want to be led, whether willing to admit it or not.

How to change this pattern? Maybe we cannot, maybe we don't.

The effective principle in this reality seems dependent on conflict of opposites. This is a great realisation that conflict is inevitable and even necessary to maintain the structure of our reality. The equality soup that is created through living idealised versions of equality does not work on the long term - polarities always reform and classes develop - recognising this and allowing for it in a safe simulated way gives opportunity to deviate this tendency from violence.

Maybe we're asking all the wrong questions.

Monti