Do you think cowardice is wise and reasonable? - profitable and productive? - for a wink? for a promise? for a prayer? - and defensible?
Nothing Worth Fighting For
Sure.
Why else would cowardice be so common? so normal? so casually accepted as the acceptable morality of acceptable people?
*
After all:
isn't courage unwise and unreasonable?
isn't this why the "advisors", "ear-holders", "closest of close inner circles" of dictators and tyrants are little more than barrels of wind-up plastic rictus-faced monkeys, clapping tin cymbals and bowing at the bidding of hands that wind them?
isn't courage unprofitable and unproductive?
isn't this why "influencers with followings", "high-net-worth individuals", "captains and titans of industry" sever and silence backbones in surrender?
for the loss and suffering experienced by everyday people being nothing really compared to state-sanctioned persecution and retaliation lobbed with prejudicial fervor at "the powerful"
legitimizes deferential capitulation in the name of powerlessness? and docile servility in the name of "fiduciary care"?
*
After all:
isn't courage, in the end, futile?
for in the real world tangible interests of everyday people who experience measurable material consequences of "appeasement", is there ever a defensible argument for refusal? - denial? - protest? - opposition? - hostility?
which is to say,
is there ever a just raison d'être for warring against cowardice?
in the name of common men and women and children whose freedom have been traded for a wink? because nationalism is ever an ideological refuge for anti-them sentiments that run deep with abandon as "pride";
in the name of normal actions and thoughts and beliefs which have been disowned for a promise? because promises are ever the currency of deceivers who traffic in "truths" that lie;
in the name of acceptable principles that denounce and repudiate moral abdications cloaked in "the emperors' new prayers"? because pretentious sanctimony masks are ever the weapons of brittle extremists against human, secular, and ethical interests;
or is a war against cowardice impossible because winks by nationalists and promises by deceivers and prayers by extremists are above all:
eminently tenable?
*
Needless to say:
it is not enough that the "closest of close inner circles" of dictators and tyrants yield their autonomies to their masters -
it is not enough that "powerful people" and "influential personalities" capitulate before pecuniary interests held hostage by state-endorsed harassment and revenge -
"the majority" too surrender their self-determination when they abide the bidding of hands that wind them at will and "followers" also renounce their self-respect when self-serving nakedly dispossesses their voices of backbone, but above all
when they casually accept the unacceptable, everyday people transform every corner of the world into kingdoms;
*
kingdoms where it is customary;
kingdoms where it is encouraged;
kingdoms where it is celebrated;
to see nothing! and to say nothing! and to do nothing!
because courage is nothing but a "utopian idea", a "mind virus" that would plainly rob us of something more wonderful than a "utopia", more fruitful than a "mind":
mortals on thrones exercising absolute dominion over
meek and mute multitudes.
*
As if such kingdoms,
wrought by people everywhere,
would cost us nothing worth fighting for.
As if the cost of cowardice isn't a casual evil that believes it's not.
Epilogue
We romanticize who we are.
And.
We romanticize who we aren't.
*
Some of us imagine, as "communities" of "believers", we neither sow nor foment "discord"! because it isn't "divisive" to tout "community", "faith", "grace", and above all, "righteousness"!
As if "believers" are not everyday people, reveling in the uninhibited turpitude of nationalists who wink and deceivers who promise and extremists who pray as unqualified pillars of "righteousness", "grace", "faith", and above all, "community"!
Like nothing is real!
Like nothing matters!
*
We romanticize courage.
And.
We romanticize cowardice.
*
Some of us imagine, as "neighbors" and "citizens", we neither beget nor rouse "conflict"! because it isn't "nasty" to praise "entitled opinions", stoke "aggrieved feelings", amplify "newsfluencers", and above all, worship "truths" over "fake facts"!
As if vindictive rancorousness is "courageous";
as if belligerent saber rattling is "refreshingly honest";
as if people everywhere know "this is beautiful"!
*
When seeing nothing and saying nothing and doing nothing becomes
wise and reasonable;
when kingdoms of mortals on thrones exercising absolute dominion over meek and mute multitudes become
profitable and productive;
when romanticization becomes
"the real truth", defensible and applauded;
we imagine
reality is fiction that believes it's not.
M
*
Note
When there are calls to "tone down the rhetoric" because "this isn't who we are" - I think - Seriously? As if by calling "truths" that lie - "rhetoric" - everybody everywhere is on the same page with respect to self-censorship and "decorous speech" across "public halls, squares, and forums". Please. As if calls for unity vis a vis "we" (i.e. "who we are", "who we aren't", etc.) aren't self-important pretensions of "consensus" and "common ground". Come on.
The calling for the assassination of public servants isn't "rhetoric". It's an incitement to exact vengeance, justified by gordian rationalizations and arbitrary legitimizations, and amplified by provocateurs and contrarians, believers and followers, and zealots and extremists.
Notwithstanding that it bears emphatically iterating, "who we are" and "who we aren't", aren't a movie (i.e. Birth of a Nation, etc.) or a television show (i.e. Roots, etc.) or a song (i.e. "Dixie", etc.) or a poem (i.e. "The New Colossus", etc.). For "who we aren't" are main characters in make-believe Mayberry; for "who we are" are authors of "facts" and "truths", romanticized for narrative fictions,
as if nothing worth fighting for is real.
M
