I begin.

https://www.thewildpharma.co.uk/plants/blueflag

Under Pressure

The percentages, the staple of decision-makers in the media's gaze. The majority of people who would be picked as jewish under the aryan law of Hitler's regime if it were introduced would be surprised. No less if a similarly law was repurposed for deportation to Israel, using very unreliable genetic database analysis, the majority would be surprised. Those who insist they are of jewish lineage may, by this measure, find themselves ejected from Israel. On and on it goes, if reification of racism develops further.

In our democracies we defer to the majority often without further debate, without admitting that the actual majority often makes that majority a minority. Some that voted Brexit do not simply regret the actuality, they believe they were uninformed of the projected consequences of a Brexit. Considering that few can be  broadly educated in every information dependent decision we should, informed by the certain probability of "unforeseen" consequences making a minority - of the majority additional to the minority that already forms a greater majority than the token majority - regret their decision, we should use any such decision to commit to further debate until social effects, the necessity of negative liberty - the right to be unimpeded in pursuit of private existence that does not impose on other private lives - outweighs the authority of decision makers by vote or "public opinion".
This would be what a petitioners' democracy by my design would achieve. It is a retrofit of Habeas Corpus. That Parliamentary Democracy exceeds this progressive practical direction toward social solidarity evolving from deconstruction of authority's power supposedly selected by democracy (which only derives from allegiances forced into formation under threat of destruction of the State that legitimated their honourific power in public life) though in practice little more than partially codified conventions installed by arbitrary decisions under pressure.

Returning to the issue of theology as biologically inherited, or one of it's by-products, Israel. There is no way out of conflict resolving such a cosmogonic competition except by agreeing it is certainly very questionably premised. None of the media featured contenders for parliamentary, or otherwise, seats breaks away from the prejudicial, albeit argued as conferring "recognition", perpetuation of certain segregations to further establish a dependence on parliamentary absolution to absorb constructed tribal divisions that are variously expelled for treatment, generally of legal contradiction and circuitious means to the end that begins the same.
Godlike Democracy, dividing for conquest by immanent nationalisms, is unbelievable.

Cattle, sheep diseases

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC95770/

Schmallenberg_virus still fits the speculation. However I was also mistaking it for the above.
Note how little is known about these viruses, a common factor.

Caring

When one is approaching irreversible infirmity, there should be the option of euthanasia.
Not at all in a matter of fact way, however. Departure locations should be established where a form of life and work can be known, where the departing can reside, be engaged by those living, having worked, or knowing the life, there.

Enough

http://existais.tumblr.com/post/145252206797/dr-kate-fergusons-speech-at-the-house-of-lords-on

This would be instructed by Constitution. Concerns about equipness would be addressed by petition, then by petitioners selection from what is presently Lords of three independent drivers overseen by the Trio Presidency. Overseen, as Constitutionally, by Judiciary, who are selected by combined petition, Lords, Presidency.

The present crisis of social care, denied by the encumbent responsible for engineering it with excuses of economy, would be dissolved by Basic Income mechanism. Economy follows, it does not lead. We do not need frauds known as politicians.

This works in French

If you wish to contend the following please attend the title.
Consider the hypothesis that knowledge degenerates into religion. What religion does, then, to language, or what happens with language - without, or in failure of, the Archimedean Point - that creates religion which always threatens punishment for non-participants.
This is how we can forget the Oedipal as anything other than the resulting salience in closed systems, isolated communities that reproduce that isolation to the family unit. This has form, since it was Ahknaten's very mark on the Nile Kingdom lineage. It is, that isolation, a probable, it is that, rarity in life, early life. We cannot escape the biblical motifs and question their utility to the design, the aim, of the texts. That, too, I leave to you to explore.
What is borne of the use of the Oedipal motif, or metaphor as Lacan more usefully accedes is the only thorough apparency, is the SuperEgo. Usually that would suffice as explanation of all, at least in proposing that comparative religion - and recall the ur-text to Derrida's journey - finds recognition of what supposedly would not be found by common observation (as opposed to wise deliberation) and give humanity to some common need for religion.
This, in Derrida and Graeber especially, launches from Levi-Strauss a systematic mapping of life guided by fiduciary talk. No less the Chatter that Heidegger, and now Habermas, despises does emerge as this same accountancy. Presently, if not Pokemon Go grouping, the Selfie explosion (consider the Daesh documents for the injection of explosivity).

How is this possible?

I was going to introduce this by riffing on Jeremy Corbyn's Trident renewal remark, that he did not "believe" it was "legitimate". However I haven't the energy at this time in this piece. In sum he cannot have International Law without accepting UK Law, which has no constitution, no comparable match with codification. Further that law, the one on targetting civilians, depends on war having been declared. Not a guaranteed event in the event of a State using weapons. This obvious, there is, so to speak an extra or pre marital bastard, if this law is a wedding, a polygamous marriage of States...

Let's go to the SuperEgo.
First an anecdote. I slightly conversed with a JS Mill worshipping NHS worker (an orderly, or even a nurse and possibly a junkie). Their sadistic way of coping was astonishing, though now I fear quite ubiquitous. The conversation somehow was on penal practices, crime exactly I expect. As ever I was pushed, as the one who can be critical, to provide a better means of destroying the habits of those injurious to that Millian horde, us if not you. Unrelenting, inarticulable because entirely physical, ecstatic pleasure. That was my answer. Knowing the mind finds no state of nature as ones own mind is all one can return to. And so much intense pleasure soon becomes a burden to regain oneself enough to be someone at all. This would attract the pre-criminal. This would not be a challenge. We know so little of so much, we know so much of that little that is pure inarticulable pleasure. Exquisite in the vernacular. Especially that of Vienna.

You are now prepared with all you need to know you need to know for the main argument, or theory, that follows on.

A Way

I consider nothing is "all in the mind" which is all in the body.
Plainly we are born(e) into thought of thought. We are our creation in the physical world of an internal world. External occurences are taken as directly a consequence of our thoughts.
There are consequences when we believe the converse, outside in. We can only arrange them as fictions, and will resort to fiction as tool as a result.
This does begin as exercise of being in young adulthood, which must be the epicentre sought in analysis, not early "memory". We are seeking where language is known as destructured. For this is what thought was and all that memory between the epicentre and source movement is. Nothing will be other than a sample from that depth. We seek the surface of the present shaken by that long sustained blast.

This is what I would move psychoanalysis to. If I can. This is to say the analysis cannot proceed until adulthood. The young must be told that is where they are, if need be, and what may need be. I see no problem with the young, as it were, making up their epicentre for future analysis.
The best that can be done is to inform them of the analytical method, the old ways and the new so they may consider it on those problematic to them.

To be certain, I am only working from my own life. I will not be testing anything on another.