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