When Democracy for Coin

Let's be honest about hyperbolic hand-wringing for the sake of democracy the people must speak! Because no one who votes for their coin is speaking "for the sake of democracy". Because a vote "for the sake of the economy" is not a vote for the sake of participation in governance.

*

To put it plainly:

if you believe governance is you do what you want and to hell with everybody but you, that is, self-rule that declares your self, including your economic self-interest, above all other interests, your "participation in governance" is your declaration of self-rule.

As in:

long live self-rule bless us all!

When Democracy for Coin

When the people speak for "the economy", how often is this shorthand for their coin, duh, their coin? Making it. Keeping it. Not giving it up.

Such that when the people speak for "the economy", how often is this shorthand for laissez faire, duh, laissez faire? 

As if the ultimate democracy is no rule but self-rule.

*

Hah.

Self-rule hostages us to individual responsibility.

As in:

safe placements for children removed from familial care, accident-free warehouses and factories, meat and produce and water to eat and drink without poison and disease, and so on, that exist not because self-regulation and nonintervention guarantee decency.

Please.

When self-rule speaks for economic self-importance at the expense of decency towards children, workers, and consumers, what is the "governance" you believe in, if not indifference ruled by self-indulgence?

*

As though:

"individual responsibility" is sacred. As it papers over your want is your right and the devil be damned like this too is inviolate. As harmless as the devil may care.

What are a few children, workers, and consumers - okay a few hundred children, workers, and consumers - okay a few thousand children, workers, and consumers - before your millions strong harks of long live self-rule bless us all?

Translation:

protecting anybody at the expense of self-rule that speaks for economic self-importance is [fill in the blank].

*

Self-rule declares "individual responsibility" the only governance it abides; wherein "responsibility" starts and stops with: your self, including your economic self-interest, is your polestar.

As for millions strong children, workers, consumers, and so on?

Hah.

When such polestar is liberated of any obligation but your self: (1) life is every individual for every individual's self and (2) in the crosshairs of indifference ruled by self-indulgence, "the people" and "the common good".

*

No.

A vote for such governance is no triumph.

It is, however, a vote for what you believe in and what you speak for:

you, amen.

Epilogue

Unless all of us altogether defend democracies worth saving -

democracies of "the people" and "the common good", by "the people" and "the common good", and for "the people" and "the common good" -

our vote for no rule but self-rule shall stand the world over

as our indifference ruled by self-indulgence and our economic self-importance at the expense of decency -

writ large.

M

*

Note

When Democracy for Coin continues as follows

When Democracy for Coin Is a Vote of a People that Speaks Such Will - Such Vote for Indifference to Decency as a Guiding Principle of Laissez Faire that Liberates a Government of a Democracy, a Republic, and a Nation of Its Duty to Govern, of Its Responsibility to the People, and of Its Obligation to the Common Good - Is No Triumph.

M

*

Author's Note

Theories of hydrogenated hot air excited by sham piety and fire-breathing invention roused to rabid combustion by frauds impersonating integrity and populism -

in other words,

legitimacy, as bankrupt and as trustworthy as rot, desolating and defacing any one good that gives a shit -

is not what I believe in and what I speak for, amen.

M

Ghosts of Christmas

Have you ever heard of a Christmas ghost who saves

greed?

Ghosts of Christmas

We know the ghosts of Christmas, as familiar as the advent: the grim past, the glorious present, the silent future. But this ghost story is no mere nightmare; it's how

good is saved.

*

Such comfort: the known and the familiar. It is a thing we crave, like it is something real and tangible and material and precious.

But it's a ghost.

That we cling to. A blanket that comforts the toddlers we used to be. The toddlers we manifestly are. When we demand the present be known and familiar. Not tomorrow: NOW!

Though a ghost cannot be commanded thus.

*

Still we invite them.

To be pasts brim with triumphs. Happiness, wealth, and unions all, charmed by the brittle plaster of remembrance. Sanctity preserved against rot.

Until such smoke writhes in the cool water of reality.

*

Of despair? No. The present is not hopeless. Who says that? No one.

But the feverish make believe of a child, it is not.

Nor is it the terror absent of sugar, too bitter a medicine to swallow. We are, after all, made of tougher grit than dogs' tails, no?

*

As for death, if there is a shadow that lives and breathes, it is the seasoned veteran of life's cessation. Implacable and mortally inescapable, none who oppose it, win.

Still we taunt it.

Though a shadow doesn't care.

*

Oh a good ghost story is good! 

Like doppelgangers of norepinephrine, specters coax panic to reign. But we are immune and invincible. Nothing as familiar as the advent, horrifies we callous and soulless.

As if a Christmas spirit is real and tangible and material and precious.

Long live greed bless us all!

Notes

(i) it goes without saying that ghosts of Christmas is a reference to A Christmas Carol. In Prose. Being a Ghost Story of Christmas (Charles Dickens);

(ii) while you may be inclined to read various words above, including advent, ghost, etc., as meaning but one of many meanings, this is not any inclination of mine;

(iii) likewise, figurative and idiomatic language above should not incline you to reason but one understanding is especially referenced while all other, representations for example, are indeliberate; 

including literal;

see also (ii);

(iv) although the generation for whom Pollyanna is a contemporary is the generation of a century past, evoking "Pollyannaism" in the glorious present is evoking the feverish make believe of a child to what exactly: live?

of course "Pollyannaism" is a reference to Pollyanna (Eleanor Hodgman Porter);

(v) while the grim past, the glorious present, and the silent future echo A Christmas Carol, this is neither the only intention nor the sole purpose for their inclusion above;

also sugar and dogs' tails as echoes of the nursery rhyme "What All the World Is Made Of" or "What Folks Are Made Of";

see also (ii, iii);

(vi) like a labyrinth, this ghost story is no mere nightmare; 

What are ghosts made of?

What are ghosts made of?

Night and shade and sour lemonade.

Gloves and heels and devils in deals.

That's what ghosts are made of.

M

*

Author's Note

This ghost story may not be a romantic fantasy of guts and gore, but the shadows at our heels are no less haunting as our companions for Allhallowtide and Christmastide.

As what was, what is, and what could be.

Ghosts.

Of vows and oaths, dead souls, and what should not be.

For though we are without doubt or conscience without feeling or soul, romantic fantasy is trusted. What else is the past we trust with hearts proud without real memories of really being there but smoke from our own fire-breathing invention? As if confidence pretending not to defy belief is the real past, present, and future.

After all, what haunts we who veni vidi vici is not what is make believe, it is what was, what is, and what will be real.

What is death made of?

What is death made of?

Future spent and every hope rent.

Void sublime sans one more last time.

That's what death is made of.

M

Give Up: The Battle for Good

Like a foghorn from a lighthouse, you say give up. Upon a wing and a wave, you hear a message for no one but you.

that's the hook line and sinker of it

'till velvet seats are lined by it

this roller coaster's not through with us

be still for morrow's still for us

Give Up: The Battle for Good

Forgiveness.

It's just for you.

Personal responsibility.

It's just for them.

Dialogue.

Words are a waste. Even though words have brought you and them to this point. This exhausting point. This exultant point. This unendurable point. This disbelieving point. Right now.

*

Don't give up

because you're protesting.

Don't give up

because you don't care.

Don't give up

because it doesn't matter.

*

Own it. How fed up you are. Of being shamed. For overextending yourself on leased I've made it wheels. For lying to hustle fudge figure commissions. For double dipping on tax breaks.

Then:

Own it. How blood boiling mad you are. At the self-absorbed who live beyond their means. At liars who scam for a living. At frauds who rob taxpayers.

* 

Own it. How forgiveness runs thick as butter. If it was what Jesus done, then it be what you done. Because that be the glory of God. Salvation for nothing but believing.

Then:

Own it. How no sin done be unpunished. There be God's judgment and there be justice in the now. Because lawlessness cannot be had. Not in the here where injustice be.

*

There be no talking. Because there be no agreeing. Because you share nothing with them. Neither common ground. Nor common goal. Nor common future.

Because they sick and tired of cooperating with you. Sick and tired of tolerating. Sick and tired of unifying.

It's time for you done talking. Because real solutions to real problems of real people for the real world is they done talking.

*

Give up

because you want to.

Give up

because only God forgives hypocrites who hypocrisy; owns harms after words; and parleys with mortal judges.

Give up

because nothing good ever comes of giving a shit.

 

On Giving Up and Giving In

In the battle for good and evil, there's much ado about not giving in.

To communism. To socialism. To regimes that are so-called "exemplars" of oppressive corruption. That subject party members to investigations of loyalty. That pull no punches to punish dissenters as traitors against party and nation.

Not unlike, say, democracies or republics or democratic republics. That subject party members to tests of fealty. That retaliate against disloyalty as betrayals of party and nation.

Which is to say, the battle for good and evil isn't a battle about not giving in to one ideology over an other. The battle for good and evil is a battle about not giving in to regimes of integrity for sale. Because there's nothing principled about licking the hand that signs the checks you cash.

*

Moreover, there's much ado about not giving in.

To religious rule. To regimes that are so-called "exemplars" of radical extremism. That subject citizens to morality policing against godless offenses. That sanction military crackdowns of civil protests against undemocracy.

Not unlike, say, democracies or republics or representative democracies. That empower the morality policing of citizens qua "conscience" denials of health care, justice, education, services. That threaten military enforcement of law and order against civilians at civil protests.

Which is to say, the battle for good and evil isn't a battle about not giving in to one canon over an other. The battle for good and evil is a battle about not giving in to regimes immune to mortal judgment. For a divine right to immunity without limits is endowed no one.

*

In other words, what's in name only is your much ado about not giving in.

M

*

On Giving Up and Checking Out

In the battle for good and evil, there's much ado about not checking out.

Leveraging viciousness. Not letting any fish, no matter how small, go. Flinging every stone. The hotter the heat, the better. The muddier the mud, the better than better. Because the stakes are too high.

After all, it's all for you.

Checking out?

It's just for them. 

Meanwhile, you whinge and wail: unfair! when viciousness leveraged is hostile; when fish, no matter how small, won't let go; when every stone without mercy is flung; when heat that's hotter, charbroils; when mud that's muddier, tars and feathers you. 

After all, it's all for you.

Not much ado about sticky flagpole running?

It's just for them.

Because the stakes are too high.

*

Which is to say, giving up the battle for good is the common ground and the common goal and the common future of them. And you.

M

*

Epilogue

Suppose I say:

Trust no one but me! They don't want me to tell you the truth, but I'm telling you: you can't trust them! Would they say that? No! Because they're liars! They know it! You know it! Everybody knows it!

Would you believe me?

Am I standing up to "them"? Because I'm saying this? Are you standing up to "them"? Because you're grinning and roaring and eating this up?

Suppose I say:

Who'd believe a fake who says: Trust no one but me! A loser and everybody knows: losers get what they deserve!

Am I giving "them" hell? Because I'm saying "fake" and "loser"? Are you giving "them" hell? Because you're flying the words in my mouth on your flags unfurled?

*

You say this speech is your voice because [fill in the blank]. 

Tell me:

Are words that pretend to be true just as good as being true?

*

You say this speech is the truth because [fill in the blank].

Tell me:

Do you believe the truth? Or do you believe words that pretend to be just as good?

*

If only I was born yesterday!

M

My Plate Is Full, My Table Laden

Why care?

When my plate is full, my table laden?

Care because caring is nothing to do with your plate or your table; care because your excuses are neither good reasons nor just reasons to not; care because the need to do so is needing and the luxury to do so is caring.

My Plate Is Full, My Table Laden

For all that so many of us pray for plates full and tables laden -

     far fewer of us do more;

for every word of gratitude, thanks, and blessing -

     far less is given;

because our plates are ours and our tables are ours -

     and ours is not yours. 

*

Make no mistake:

prayers and words are prayers and words -

     and nothing more.

*

But prayers and words are enough!

*

If prayers are enough, then why pray for plates full and tables laden? If prayers are enough, then why pray for material gifts? Isn't enough enough?

If words are enough, then why speak of what you have not and why speak of what you want more? If words are enough, then why ask for more than a word?

*

Because prayers and words are not enough.

*

Unless the prayers and the words are not for you. 

Then prayers and words are enough and no more, because you can do no more than pray and speak and you can give no more than prayers and words.

*

An empty solace is neither just nor deserving of gratitude.

Because an empty solace is nothing.

To tender empty solace is to not care, because not caring is what you can do and not caring is what you can give.

*

It is easy to rest within the comfort of fullness.

Whether our plates are literally full or our tables are metaphorically laden.

Because it is easy to forget that we are sworn to an ideal of goodness, when we are blessed by the fruits of our lies.

*

What are words of gratitude and thanks and blessing in the mouths of liars?

But asks.

Asks for more.

As if our full plates and laden tables are our prayers answered. And yours are your prayers unanswered. As if this is goodness and rightness. Because material gain is deserved. Likewise, material suffering.

As if justice and injustice is the sword and the rod of God. Never mind the hand of human kind that grasps for greed and power.

*

This soup of pseudo religious worship cum determinism cum pseudo ideological axiom of deserving cum nihilism is, gee whiz, so convenient, isn't it? After all, in this soup, being sworn to an ideal of goodness, is meaningless.

Why not pray for more? If all of it is meaningless. Except insomuch that all of it is a show. Or a performance. Or an act. Because why not? If nothing matters.

*

Not caring is easy.

Whether or not or if or how or because:

     this soup.

But why?

Why give up our goodness to dolers of prayers and words? Why give up what's worth fighting for? If lies in the mouths of liars are lies. Why believe

     this soup is the truth?

Addendum

There is a nuclear option that goes something like this:

     "So and so is evil, but so and so tells it like it is."

Really?

Because evil tells no lies?

     Yes!

Which is to say: you can't see the forest for the performance. It goes something like this:

     A liar who "tells it like it is" is selling a show, a performance, an act.

     No?

     When you believe a show, a performance, an act is "honest",

     you buy the whole sausage,

     every lie and then some,

     including the lie that "telling it like it is" is telling the truth.

*

Is it telling the truth -

     to tell you what you want to hear

     so you excuse what you don't want to hear?

Or

is it telling the truth -

     to tell you what you want to believe

     so you excuse what you believe, no matter how wrong and how unjust?

*

Which is to say: you see just fine. You see exactly what you want to see. You see wrongness and unjustness being given oxygen and life. And that's not just fine: that's a prayer answered. And why not, anyhow? Because it's about time (yes!) what you believe is heard by someone telling it like it is (amen!).

*

Because every evil deserves its day?

As if this soup of pseudo religious worship cum determinism cum pseudo ideological axiom of deserving cum nihilism isn't grasping desperation.

That is, fear.

Fear of justice. Fear of caring. Fear of the truth.

M

*

Author's Note

There is a temptation to excuse evil. To see wrongness and unjustness and excuse both. Because of good or faith or both.

But

the temptation to excuse wrongness and unjustness is neither act of good nor faith nor both.

In the end, the unwillingness to see wrongness and unjustness as wrong and unjust; the unwillingness to give up the soup of pseudo religious worship cum determinism cum pseudo ideological axiom of deserving cum nihilism; and the unwillingness to shut down every lie that tells you what you want to hear and what you want to believe

is how wrongness and unjustness is given oxygen and life

by you.

And that's not just fine: that's a prayer answered

by you.

M

*

Epilogue

There is a refrain that goes something like this:

     "When and where will it end?"

     or "All that matters - no matter how wrong and how unjust - is what matters to me."

     or "What about this ad hominem and that straw scarecrow?"

That is to say, there is a refrain that excuses wrongness and unjustness. Because wrong speech and unjust speech deserve their day.

*

Do they? Deserve their day? Devil be damned?

*

If canons that are unjust are your no end; if hearts full with asks for what you have not and what you want more are your matter; if liars who sell ad hominem and straw scarecrow sausages are your good reason and just reason;

     what prayer are you the answer for?

*

As if the fruits of lies

deserve oxygen and life and sanctity

and the devil be damned.

M

*

Author's Postnote

If words are words and nothing more,

why believe - words?

*

That is to say:

why believe - spoken or written - speech?

much less -

spoken and written - free speech - of pseudo religious worship cum determinism cum pseudo ideological axiom of deserving cum nihilism?

*

Because you believe in nothing?

but your self-serving self-superior self?

because your "right" to "believe" is your right to put your self-serving self-superior self - above all?

because your self - interest is your master?

* 

Why care?

When your plate is full, your table laden?

Care because caring is the opposite of seeing wrongness and unjustness being given oxygen and life and saying nothing; care because choking down sausages for sale isn't why your will is free; care because your apathy and your indifference is a miracle in the lap of the grasping and desperate.

M

The Hypothetical Parrot King

What if, what if, what if.

What if your leader relies on "instincts"?

Which begs the question - isn't self-interest an "instinct" - the "instinct" of self-preservation - never mind the price or the cost?

Needless to say - if neither such self-interest nor such self-preservation are your self-interest or your self-preservation - what price and what cost are you paying for the interest and the preservation of your leader?

The Hypothetical Parrot King

It's simple.

I'm not speaking to you.

You parrot.

You tool.

You puppet.

What would be the point of speaking to you? Parrots and tools and puppets aren't listeners. They're yes people. Show me a yes person who "listens" and I'll show you a pretender. Because parrots and tools and puppets are company people. Do you beg to differ?

Please.

You must think I'm some kind of stupid.

Speaking to you is a waste of breath.

*

So - are all of us preachers, preaching to the choir?

Can I hear an "Amen!" from the choir of parrots? And an "Amen!" from the choir of tools? And an "Amen!" from the choir of puppets?

A-fucking-men.

As if preaching to the choir is what ads are for. What briefings are for. What tweets are for. For parrots and tools and puppets to be preached at. Because preaching at loyalists is what preaching is for.

Duh.

You must believe you're some kind of genius. With some kind of genius "instincts" that are genius facts. To be a yes person and to be a company person and to think - your "Amen!" is not the "Baaa!" of a sheep "Baa-ing" in a synchronous flock of "Baaas" in a monotonous chorus of "Amen-ing" loyalists.

No wonder none of us are saying, saying to us -

when "Amens!" from choirs is what preaching is for -

what is listening for?

*

Is listening our vestigial tail?

Of inconsequential utility? Except insofar as patriots who "listen" are vassals that do what they're told the better? The better to sing and dance and mimicry and clap and praise on cue?

Halle-fucking-lujah!

That's right.

Righter than

listening is not for not listening.

*

It's simple.

I'm not speaking to you.

You parrot.

You tool.

You puppet.

Because you are not listening to me. You are listening to yes people. And company people. And great pretenders pretending to be "listeners". Who I am not. You are listening to ads. And briefings. And tweets. That I do not author. You are listening to preachers. And choirs. And "Amen-ing" patriots "Baaa-ing" like sheep. Who I am not shepherding.

I'm speaking to the hypothetical.

Because the hypothetical is the possible.

Epilogue

It is possible that parrots and tools and puppets, listen.

But let me put it this way:

even though it is possible that horseshit is not horseshit, no one shovels horse manure and says, "Well horse poop is not horse poop or I am a pigasus!"

So even though it is possible that "Amens!" from choirs is not what preaching is for, no one preaches to the choir and says "Well monotonous choruses of "Amens!" are not the "Baaa-ing" of synchronous flocks of sheep!"

Because no one is that kind of stupid.

*

So if you're listening to yes people and company people and great pretenders pretending to be "listeners", say, "We're listeners and we're listening!" And you believe this that's said. Then you're some kind of hypothetically stupid.

If you're listening to ads and briefings and tweets, say, "We rely on our "instincts" because our "instincts" are genius facts!" And you believe this that's said. Then you're some kind of hypothetically stupid.

And if you're listening to preachers and choirs and "Amen-ing" patriots "Baaa-ing" like sheep, say, "Our self-interest and our self-preservation are your self-interest and your self-preservation!" And you believe this that's said. Then you're some kind of hypothetically stupid.

*

Because the hypothetical is the possible, it is possible that you are not some kind of stupid. But if the hypothetical is the possible, then it is possible that

I am speaking to you.

Addendum

Prologue

When you are hypothetically lead by a hypothetical parrot king, what is said by said king and said king's ministers, attendants, coteries, and the like, is not always what is true. In other words, what is said by parrots and tools and puppets, that is, said king and vassals of varying consequence and relation of said king, is not always what is true.

Because a hypothetical parrot king relies on you believing what is said is always what is true; because a hypothetical parrot king relies on your hypothetical stupidity; a hypothetical parrot king with some kind of genius "instincts" that are genius facts relies on

          you being the parrot and the tool and the puppet you hypothetically are.

*

I or Parrot

The easiest thing to say to rally a people is us versus them. Which is the sanitized translation of me versus you.

It is a lot harder to say we're in this together. Why? Because if there is one lifeboat for me, a hypothetical parrot king, and no lifeboat for you, then we are not all in this together, are we? So we're all in this together is a steaming pile of hypothetical shit.

As for how the reality of we're not all in this together is messaged into the sanitized translation of me versus you - this is nothing to do with messaging that is "real" and this is everything to do with messaging that is strategic and opportunistic. In other words, messaging (1) that rallies a people (2) and satisfies the self-interest and the self-preservation of a hypothetical parrot king (3) is messaging that is both strategic and opportunistic.

One fail safe such messaging is we are at war, like so:

Step (1): a hypothetical parrot king seeds a "war" or two or three. Step (2): a hypothetical parrot king declares a "war" or two or three. Step (3): a hypothetical parrot king claims real and imagined "victories". Step (4): all real and imagined blame and all real and imagined losses, are assigned to you, because a hypothetical parrot king is blameless. Step (5): repeat.

Which is to say, to be hypothetically rallied by a hypothetical parrot king who is not in this with you, is to hear:

          a hypothetical parrot king be the real parrot king.

*

II or Tool

You may believe that the self-interest and the self-preservation of a hypothetical parrot king is your self-interest and your self-preservation.

Or you may not.

You may believe that relying on the "instincts" of a hypothetical parrot king is relying on genius facts.

Or you may not.

You may believe that in exchange for one fine-print-free free ride after another, a hypothetical parrot king is neither asking for a thing nor expecting a thing.

Or you may not.

Which is to say, to be hypothetically pandered to by a hypothetical parrot king who cites hypothetical flying pigs to the sick, the dying, and the dead, is to see:

          you are the means of a hypothetical parrot king - not the ends.

*

III or Puppet

The ring that pulls you by the nose is neither an "executive order" nor a "recommendation" nor the like. The fuel that inflames you blind is neither a "call" to patriotism or loyalism nor a "duty" of fealty or faith nor the like. The hand that propels you to fray is neither a "theory" nor "invisible" nor the like.

If you believe this that is said, then your hypothetical stupidity is a miracle in the lap of a hypothetical parrot king.

Like bulls, you are taunted.

Like matchsticks, you are lit on fire.

Like pawns, you are played.

Because (1) the ring that says my way of life is worth taking your life and your life and your life and your life; (2) the fuel that says my economy is worth climbing over thousands of cooling bodies for; (3) the hand that says the greater good that I serve is my power and my wealth; (4) are strings that pull your hypothetical heart and your hypothetical mind to serve your hypothetical parrot king.

Which is to say, to be hypothetically commanded by a hypothetical parrot king whose hypothetical keys open neither doors nor economies, is to know:

          a commendation from the lap of a hypothetical parrot king is as bankrupt as the real parrot king.

*

Epilogue

What if, what if, what if.

What if there are three futures: one that could be; one that should be; one that will be?

If the hypothetical is the possible -

isn't it possible the future will not be what will be; isn't it possible the future will be

what is possible?

M

Author's Note

Live for you and your friends and your enemies. Live for the ones you love and the ones you hate. Live for the rest of your life.

Don't die for money or playgrounds or appearances. Don't die for schools or identities or shows.

"Protesters" who speak of "cruelty" and "imprisonment", whose frame of reference is a month or two or three of such "cruelty" and such "imprisonment", don't speak for the sick and the dying and the dead. Now or to come.

What you live for now - is what you will live with forever. Make it more than being a bull, taunted to your death; make it more than being a match stick, lit and thrown away; make it more than a wasted breath.

Which is to say, the real parrot king who goads the "masters of fear" and ridicules the "slaves of fear" and says the real parrot king is your liberator

          neither lives for you nor dies for you.

M

An Unsayable Letter

There is no language, that exists, that says what is.

This is, therefore, an approximation at best.

A letter.

To say what is unsayable.

To say what is.

Α

I am not smug. Like a wanna-be God of a wanna-be Kingdom. Not now. Not ever.

I am, instead, as subject to the real world as real people. I can no more step out of this reality like you step out of a river, than I can walk into that La La Land like you walk into errancy. 

I am, instead, grateful. That I do not take for granted what is. That I do not take for granted what is not. 

I am, instead, wronged and angry and patient and unforgiving. For my heart beats, as real as yours. In this Perdition, my blood boils like heated thunder.

I do not ask how. Because I know how. I do not ask why. Because I know why.

Do you?

What is unsayable is not hollow comfort that succors no one. Nor is it spit that sticks balls to walls. Because petty is easy. What is unsayable is not.

Ugly and real, what is unsayable, is the truth. 

Ω

Note I

that Α and Ω are capital letters from the Greek alphabet, that is, Alpha and Omega; and that La La Land is capitalized and not compounded, by design and intention

M

Α

Addendum

I

With respect to "blue" versus "white", which is to say, with respect to "collars", to believe such distinction is vital to the real appreciation of reality is to fail to appreciate (1) that such distinction is the deliberate exploiting of emotional allegiance to "collars" (2) to create a false reality more important than real reality.

That is to say, such distinction is not more important than the distinction between the 0.1% and the 99.9%.

That is to say, such distinction is not more important (1) than wealth amassing by profiteering and scheming called "investing" in "investment" (2) versus wage earning by toil called "employment".

Such that, this distinction is (1) why wealth amassing is protected and (2) why wage earning is not.

Because wealth amassers are (1) not in the business of protecting the 99.9%, (2) much less at the expense of the 0.1%.

II

Notwithstanding, the "white" backbone of the smartphone you use for online banking, the GPS supported navigation you use to track deliveries, the online service you use to get the news, the mobile wifi you use for roadside assistance, and much more are arguably as essential as the "blue" backbone of warehouse stock, shipment delivery, utility repair, sanitation work, etc.

Which is to say, whether we are a member of the "blue" workforce or we are a member of the "white" workforce, we are all subject to the real world of living on zero wages when we are unemployed, put on "unpaid leave", or furloughed for the foreseeable future by wealth amassers in the business of increasing wealth.

III

Notwithstanding, while millions of wage earners are living on zero wages, wealth amassers know (1) that every opportunity that "bear" "markets" offer are ripe for the picking, (2) including every "bear" "market" now. After all, (1) future profits and gains from such opportunities and schemes are likely to benefit from (2) statutes that protect wealth amassing, (3) including via the reduction of tax liabilities of wealth amassers now and for the foreseeable future.

Such that, throwing wage earners overboard like so much dead weight, while receiving a bailout or two or three to be paid in full by wage earners now and for the foreseeable future, feels so right, right now, doesn't it?

Which is to say, who needs a lifeboat or two or three, right now? Wealth amassers, that's who.

IV

Needless to say, are any of us impressed that this easy road was the road taken?

Because treating real people like losses on a balance sheet or distributions on a statistical probability model, is easy. Treating real people like real people, is not.

V

Which is to say, while the "white" workforce and the "blue" workforce and every workforce not otherwise "collared", are scrambling to patch together solutions to living on zero wages, wealth amassers are scrambling, too.

After all, walking into that La La Land is the real world of the real 0.1%. Like errancy is the truth of real people for whom living is easy.

M

Ω

Note II

that the road taken is a reference to "The Road Not Taken" (Robert Frost); and that living is easy is a reference to "Summertime" (George Gershwin, DuBose Heyward, Ira Gershwin)

M