It's most unlikely for the machine to trouble shoot issues of the soul. But it hasn't stopped trying to quantify subjective materialism into objective being. Will it be able to do so without quantifying itself in the process? Who knows, we may have a couple who have no idea!

The problem with populous governments is its relationship with mob rules. It is where popular issues of interests are driven to extremes by the help of the social media. Mob rules are political groups that are external to the ruling party, but issues of interests appeal to its nationalistic element.

Their view tends to weigh-in a nationalistic reaction to judicial decisions in favour of citizens against migrants. This rule also favours populous choices on drugs and gender. As for violence and crime, the nationality and gender of the alleged culprit determines the reaction.

Recent issues of drugs and promotion have heightened this instinctual aspect. its neither human nor machine but nonetheless entity. Trouble shooting may discover a smart machine.

This populous ghost sector for its subjective entity and populous attraction is favoured by opportunistic politicians. They provoke the ghost during campaigns by casting popular issues with a nationalistic twist. And this relationship comes in handy to provide an audience in support of a policy.

A popular opportunity that a well-seasoned politician can engineer his/her success by controlling the ghost.

The trouble is, the mob's determination of an issue is subjective; the subjective nature of issues remains instinctual. As I have claimed in elsewhere, popular opinions cannot determine principle issues. That means, popular issues cannot be validated by its majority vote such as statistics of supporters.

If all migrant culprits are hang as someone suggested; driven by nationalistic sentiments, the populous vote may be overwhelmingly majority in favour. The extreme decision is driven by instincts against reason and principles therefore absurd. And despite statistical claim, principles cannot be determined by popular opinions.

We know one infamous politician who boldly weaves his way in and out of this ghost sector like a bull dozer. He has established an unfavourable image of himself that would determine his fate.

The populous ghost may attract a temporary fix, but in the long run reason shall rise to rule. It is citizen's intelligence or consensus that shall rise to stabilise the volatile instinct.

LIt is the determinant factor of leadership that I promoted; a leader shall stand for what is right and not for what is popular. A potential leader may lose the majority support for what is right, but a seasoned leader may succeed by the opportunity.

So on the one hand; a principled leader loses support but maintained a public image and on the other hand; an opportunistic leader wins support but his/her image is somewhat blurred.

Then again, the fact that the majority of voters are in that age of subjective reasoning. If so, then it is the flaw of Democracy that the so-called majority rule determines a doubtful outcome. But as I believe Democracy is not determined by numbers, then what is?

However, we are beginning to see the vulnerability of the systemic organisation in place. It is best described as imperfect.

There is no model character that possesses ideal traits of social behaviour to be clearly at the top. It is normal and natural to be imperfect at one time and be perfect at another. I don't think anyone can cope with reality if he/she has never been imperfect at one time. In fact, it is experience of both perfect and imperfect that is ideal for survival in our flawed organisation.

And the many issues and problems we have is simply because we have a false expectation of reality. And while religion is too good for most of us, the media also highlights issues to draw negative attention and promote separated sentiments.

We are ruled by chaos; we are dominated by ghost sectors. Those with reasonable determinations are in the minority, but it adds complexity to the social mix.

So for the next period while the younger generations are seasoning in their posts, it is rolling with the punches or I would say, 'going with the times'. The majority sector is a complex social organisation that nothing is perfect let alone certain. And the closest certainty to reality is a temporary opportunity to make something objective out of the populous.

It is a transitional phase of developing objectivism from ghost sectors. There are two major realms in conflicts: one is tribal; the other is populous. Tribal rolls with nationalistic sentiments; populous rolls with popular issues. Both are subjective ghosts for they are not valid, but out of which a dynamic leader must succeed.

So, the skills are not perfect by any means, but being able to cope in our extremely uncertain world. In so doing, I can understand taking advantage of a populous opportunity to develop something more objective in the long run. Oh yes, that is not afraid to take risks, including risking one's own image and career. In our most secular, subjective and uncertain world, nobody would notice anything different anyway. If they do, it is more likely to be linear abstract.

That is why it takes a dynamic leader to succeed, sacrifice and risk her career for no one seems to know what's going on. And that leader is the smart machine, trouble shooter of our time.