Choose the right word

Choose the right word

The writer observes, then the writer muses on what has been observed, rethinks on the sighted, makes objective and subjective propositions related to the phenomenon under scope, and then chooses whether or not to write on it; the writing is just the middle part: it is not the end of the “story”.
The story has a beginning, a middle, and an end just like one finds in a simple composition as penned by those pupils in a classroom.
There are themes (developed from the phenomenon under observation) which the writer explores in this composition, and the conclusions the reader as the audience makes can be drawn from the themes under exploration.

The most important part of the story is the plot, the structure to the story that determines the flow of events which if viewed from a logical point of view determines the outcome of the story.

The plot is the pattern of the story the reader can follow in its simple form, but in the case where the style of the writer is complex; then the plot itself assumes a complicated form and demands the reader’s deeper levels of thought to interpret or decipher the meaning/s of the story.

A lot of writers of circumstance follow the simple method of making the plot simple, but in the case where the phenomenon that is under observation is of a complicated sort, or, is made of different structures arranged in different levels that are of different hierarchy and form, then the plot of such a tale told becomes a complicated pattern that demands utmost attention to understand the gist of the story.

An observer of trends in different sectors of society; the writer is often met with the complex decision to pen what he or she sees but often finds that what he or she at first deemed a hallway is in actual terms a labyrinth of meanings of the lives of various individuals of myriad character.
This is the story of a land, and the plot thereof is not easy to interpret, because it thickens more times than it thins and assumes forms as varied as the citizens that are involved in its running.

In a government made up of different political parties it would be impractical to analyse the events in the state from the point of view of the absolute, that is, one cannot exactly judge what is occurring on the basis of just one side; one as a writer has to go through all of the parties involved with a fine tooth comb attitude to reveal the real truths behind some of the behaviours in different sectors of the state: judging one as the absolute villain and the other as a saint is fallacious because men behave as they do on the basis of their interactions with others in the phenomenon of society.

We are who we are because of others around us, and what we do is often the result of the relations we have had with them over the years, that is; our character is relative to the kind of relationships we have with our kin and our neighbours, our fellows and rivals.

That one should deem the acts of others as resultant to some supernatural occurrence outside of the understanding and the cognizance of ordinary people, soon leads to the masses wrongly believing that one side is right and the other wrong.

None is absolutely wrong, and no one is ever completely bad or rotten as the misinformed judges of social relations within a democratic state assume.
The virtues of compassion and grace reduce us as humans to our most effective point of relation; we become better citizens if we wear each other’s shoes, and in the process advance the progress of the state to the desired levels where it benefits all.

Resorting to such obtuse observations and malpractices as mudslinging tirades one hears over the radio or reads of in other forms of media platforms reveals nothing of us except one aspect; we are more colonised than we were in the past, in fact, we have fallen into the clutches of a more severe kind of colonialism, the very heart of its darkness: self hate.
If you hate your brother or sister on the basis of some passing event (for in the modern democratic state, a government lasts only a mere four to five years or even less as recent history has shown), then there is some something, some shortage of cells in the corpus callosum that connects the two cerebral hemispheres of the think mass you have in the confines of your cranium.

How the colours of banners and standards should divide the human race to the extent they do when it comes to politics beats my understanding, for in reality; most of the influence the spectrum seems to have on the minds of the party followers is actually based on a duncish form of hypocrisy: one claims to hate a given party but has their membership card that gets them the tenders and the other benefits.

I call the fanaticism one sees at rallies “toying-with-the-present-messing-with-the-future”, for if one deems what they hear the truth just because it agrees with their individual plans is in essence a divided entity; the same divided entity that sold their kin for mirror shards and glass beads into slavery during the old colonial era (for we now have a new form of colonialism that operates on the same ‘divide and rule’ principles of the old one).

We cannot afford not to be compassionate, we cannot forget that we are neighbours who often face poverty together, and we cannot forget that we come from a continent that is deliberately underdeveloped by the west because of the huge potential that it carries only if its citizens understand that they have to unite as one in mind, in heart, and in action.
It is with an utter sense of disgust that I listen to the campaigns leaders make that denigrate the efforts and actions of other leaders, with whom they share the same platforms, and with whom they at one stage in history shared the same visions with before the division.

I honestly do not care what party rules the state; as long as the grievances of the masses are addressed in their full spectrum that includes abysmal levels gaps between the rich and the poor, increasing levels of unemployment, rampant disease, and uncontrollable levels of crime and corruption.
Telling me as a citizen who has to cope with the symptoms of extended state mismanagement from the platform of the impoverished and unemployed just sounds like utter self-righteousness; sounds like a hyena grovelling for a morsel in a kill by a pride of lions.

The owl is far-seeing, is a symbol of wisdom, and their group is called a parliament; is a parliament full of short-sighed heckling hyenas or wise far-sighted owls or is in this case full of a group of judging crows (a group of which is called a murder)?
Who is being murdered when people choose sides and form new alliances of self-interest? It is the future of the state being stabbed to death like a lone Caesar in a Shakespearean tragedy I tell you.

The sad thing is that all of us as the citizens of this state, plebeian and noble, serf and aristocrat will have to answer to our children when the future is an unliveable place because of the wars and battles we started this day.

When Charles Dickens penned A Tale of Two Cities one would think his was a story of a love triangle gone wrong, but from one of the characters words and the events of the era in a lot of ways match the limbo we seem to be going through:

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.
The Individual hears stories of new projects, new strategies implemented that can save the country from the present status, but interspersed with these hopeful projections are slanderous words which in their primal nature match libel.

One as an individual often does not know who is really telling the truth, who is in reality fooling who, and the only sensible thing to do is just step aside and observe, and this day, such an observation has to come to the fore; the drivers have to be told to drive carefully for the road is full of potholes.
That the influences of politics and party religion end up in the media makes up for an ugly Russian doll; a long plot whose meanings are lost as the piece of history progresses toward an uncertain end.

There are meanings within meanings and all around, accusing fingers pointing in every direction. Close your eyes and think.
Finality is the mark of the end of something, and finding solutions to existing problems should form the larger part of the debates we engage in as citizens.
Loquacity should not overcome common sense, prestige should not be lost over greed, prudence should be the charm. The violent wally-wanker tirades swallowed as whole truth by the divided sections of the citizen masses spewed forth the uncouth lips of the obtuse pseudo-politician-cum-saint-I-will-patronise-only-those-that-lick-my-unwiped-bottom-for-a-floosie-favour should come to an end; that is if we are sensible.

We are what we are, and I am not the kind of individual that believes in what he hears without questioning its source, sort of like; I will never drink of water unless I have read the label: and so, I will only follow a politician if his or her speech is polished, respectful, considerate, and sensible/cal.
That one should listen to the tirades and tantrums of their “leader” just on the basis of affiliation is as old fashioned as the Nazi mass’s fanatical following of the megalomaniacal buccal boaking of the genocidal warlord Adolf Hitler (nee Schicklegrubber).

Follow the word of the calm, forget the words of a character that believes they have to shout to be heard, the most dangerous characters in human history were always loud, were always right in their own sight, which is not true.

We do not simply say the other side is wrong without first acknowledging our own weaknesses, if we do; we are merely serving the beast of self-interest which serves only the interests of those that are afflicted by it.

The biggest misunderstanding of our times is found in the interpretation of “democracy”; democracy does not mean that one should address the parliament as they would a gathering of faithful beer-quaffing patrons in a tavern.

Words have to be selected wisely so that they do not sow seeds of division amongst the citizens of the state, and personal matters between two individuals are best sorted out by the two of them and no one else.

Being considerate of the ears of the young is honourable, because whoever does not acknowledge the fact that there are children that have to reach the future is in my books not worthy of mention.

Long wars have been fought to get this state to the point it is now at, and to insult the selfless efforts of those that perished in the struggle by resorting to violent means and words after peace was found, just plain labels whoever uses such careless speech to address the masses as inconsiderate.
Reconsider, reconsider, reconsider your stance and the standing of those around you before you make any rash decisions; doing so will guarantee that you have a peaceful rostrum to speak from tomorrow when it is your turn to speak.

Messing it up without care is similar to burning down the house with its full stock of furniture before you even settle in it. Respect the house in advance.

Previous Believe in yourself
Next Fridays, doctors and gold diggers

About author

You might also like

World

Paris attacks suspect Abdeslam captured in Brussels

Top Paris attacks suspect Salah Abdeslam, Europe’s most wanted man, was wounded and captured in a dramatic raid by armed police in the Belgian capital on Friday. Abdeslam, 26, and

World

Dutch election

The Dutch political system may not have been deliberately designed to produce middle-of-the-road outcomes, but it certainly works that way in practice: many small parties, multi-party coalitions to create a

World

Kenya: Pre-election violence turns fatal

Another brutal crackdown on protests in Kenya resulted in at least three fatalities on Monday. This has been coming for several weeks, ever since the opposition launched its weekly demonstrations