The will of the people

People generally, as well as universally, don't bother forming most opinions ; or rather, it's an inescapable fact that people don't care about most things.

In high density living arrangements (which is any situation where the average human encounters another one more often than once a day over their lifetimeⁱ) it becomes increasingly probable that they will be polled nevertheless, and obviously ho bios brakhos, he di tikhne makre, ho di kairos oxos, he di peira sphalere, he di krisis khalepe... There's necessarily going to be much more in the way of things to be asked about than there'll ever be found in the meagre pile of anything anyone's ever figured out for themselves, to their satisfaction, at their expense, within their lifetime.

The seeming impediment results reliably in the simplest adaptation -- as is both typical and common of life in all presentations throughout -- whereby people generally will simply keep a list of ready answers to the common questions. A cache of sorts ; and how best to populate it than by... polling in turn ? There's no deeper substance in what "most people think" on any topic than merely "what most people think most other people think would say if asked". It's pure hearsay, long divorced from any investigation, thought or even caring ; the multitudes readily satisfy themselvesⁱⁱ with echoing whatever it is someone might have reportedly at one point heard. However long ago, it really doesn't matter any, this metaphorical echo can live on long after any conservation law'd have extinguished its true counterpart.

Thus therefore, among a gaggle of people who "all agree" with anything -- anything whatsoever at all, take "murder is wrong" for as fine an example as any, for it well illustrates the true boundless expanse of that anything in there -- nobody agrees with anything, not beyond "that's what I've heard others say". There's no more there ; most of the agreers have no personal experience with whatever's being asked about at allⁱⁱⁱ, which is just another way of saying they don't give shit one about it.^iv

All this works well enough for traditional societies (as lots of other trapings of "modern life" do) : inasmuch as nobody, manifestly, explicity and consummatedly cares "what you think", your services as battery-powered echobeacon might even come in handy. You perpetuate tradition, on your own power, and thereby you perhaps even make sense. Inasmuch as it's the word of "god", or of some long extinguished Master, however mangled, misquoted, misinterpreted... Just as long as it's not you, really ; for as long as someone else's speaking through, people might even be useful (if very moderately) even in aglomeration.

But as soon as they attempt to "organise" towards "modernisation" (ie, escape from traditionalism) the whole pile is necessarily going to collapse upon itself. Because "the will of the people" is going to be exactly whatever the hell you want it to be, and you're going to want it to be something stupid, and then depend on it as justification, and go straight to hell in a handbasket. And they won't mind. On the contrary, they'll let you do it, and applaud all the way, and then "hold" in the same manner the exact opposite view for no reason whatsoever -- that is to say, beyond the font of their hearsay having randomly changed.

And so, the same people who saw no problem with Gestapo policing of Paris back in '41 (which is to say, the French ; not Joe or Moe, but the French) will retroactively, meaninglessly, "hold" quite irreconcillable views in '46 ; the same people flooding the Berlin phonelines of the same Gestapo to "report" their neighbours (for throwing parties, and not wearing the muzzles, and whatever the fuck else) will applaud "the liberators", in groups, outside their house. They'd walk there to applaud. What are they applauding ? "There's other people here, yeee-eee!"

The Romanians will agree with you -- yes dear tavarisch Ceausescu, you're clearly on the right path -- and then disagree, leaving you scratching your head at what the fuck do words even mean. The face on the right is just about to say "Mi-am depus mandatul de patru ori", which comes to "I returned the portofolio four times"^v, which indeed is factual, and all-important : decision-making based on "the will of the people" is fundamentally flawed, inescapably marred by the simple if unyielding fact that "the people" have no will ; pretense to the contrary readily reducing to "whatever you want us to". It's like if I tried to run my harem by polling the slavegirls -- they'd leave. They're not here to come up with shit, they're here because of the shit I come up with ; and similarily children aren't born into the world either por vencer or por ser vencidos. They're born simply to be told what the fuck's what! The world's a stage, yes, but they're coming in towards it from the entrance hall, not from the actor's entrance!

Stop asking people what they think / want / will / whatever. You'll live a lot better a life (as a leader I mean, admitting there was such wonder born of woman since me, something that's appearing so unspeakably dubious these days...) and moreover, nobody's gonna care that "you gave them exactly what they were asking for". They weren't asking for anything, they were just parroting what [they thought] you said ; and moreover nobody very well fucking wants that!

Give 'em whatever the hell you feel like giving, it'll be good enough.^vi

1. This is the universal definition for high density, by lifespan and weight of the animal. It applies equally well throughout zoology, a rabbit will either encounter another every half hour (in which case they're booming) or not ; a locust will either feel another's antennae on its hind feet once every eight seconds (in which case they're swarming) or not ; and so on.

   Needless to say, a mere footstep counts, to say nothing of phone messages. Or rather, why say nothing : they count, proportionally more than a footstep. [↩]

2. There wasn't much call for any satisfaction there to begin with. If I ask you what color is verde and you can be arsed to produce an answer, any answer, it does not thereby follow you care about either green or Romanian more than an iota ; and any attempts to remedy this may, at the utmost, make you care to be rid of me and little more besides.

   Do children eat their peas through newfound caring for Pisum ingurgitation, or merely to shut the mother up already ? Because simple (which is here to say primitive) as all children are, yet all of them, in all languages and all cultures will without exception during their lives try at least once to express the directly self-obvious point : that they are doing it only to shut her up already.

   Insistence, blind, feminine, will result in activity, yes -- or rather, a sufficient semblance of activity to satisfy her simple (here to say, idiotic) needs -- and while at it tell me again what a "principle of non-violence" stands for, cuckboi ?

   There's two answers to annoyance, perdurantly insistent annoyance : violence and compliance. If you promise to not be violent, then therefore what other promise(s) do you silently make, and what exactly more do you imagine is needed to build the femstate ?

   PS. This "<a href="http://trilema.com/2018/messy/">cuck</a><a href="http://trilema.com/2020/the-pool-party/">boi</a>" 106 byte string is rapidly becoming a sort of monad, a unified token like a single syllable, I'm mere inches away from adding it as a keyboard shortcut. Such is the greatness of art, I suppose, or at least the functionally functioning kind -- because no, not all ars is longa. Some art is brief, the difference between structured and unstructured stands magnificent ; and while it may not be the ancients' fault they lacked structure it's similarly "not their fault" they lacked furniture. Whose, then ? [↩]

3. To continue with murder : when it comes to the wilful taking of human life, most haven't ever seen it done, let alone do it themselves ; the minority that have done it themselves, in their vast majority soldiers (I mean, a mob's, yes, but the mob's that pretends itself "government") do not in fact hold any such views personally. They think it's perfectly fine, which readily and simply (here in the sense of, correctly) explains their activities. [↩]
4. How much do you care about things you've never done ? And if you never do the things you most care about, what sorta neurotic derangement is that, Rapunzel ?

   It is the lot of "women" -- in the sense of exaggeratedly young females trapped in deeply idiotic lands -- to live quite thus, never doing the one thing they most care about. Let me then ask again... what sorta neurotic derangement is that, Rapunzel ? [↩]

5. The intent being that, let alone whether anybody wanted the job, literally nobody stood up to do it ; nor was in his (or mine, or for that matter Sanity's altogether) anyone available even remotely qualified to do anything even vaguely in danger of being useful. He pointedly says as much, "I'd be quite curious to hear if you twerps can actually produce out of your Comintern magic hat some kind of talent I neglected, some kind of competency I arbitrarily passed over."

   They don't engage the point, of course, for their interest is not so much in outmatching the competent ; but in the establishment (and safe-ification, however impossible it may be in fact) of the mediocrity regime. It just happens to be a delusion at the time popular, which is how these politically motivated "legal" fictions always work out in practice -- the Nurnberg trials are similarily much more interesting for the respondents and their responses than for the inquisitors and their inquiries, and so on. [↩]

6. In practice, I mean. From experience, I say all this. We're not fucking around, "opining" and whatnot, okay ? I am one who knows, in fact, from experience, and it's how I say it is for those reasons. Not a matter of "how it could be", not a discussion of "citation needed", entirely nothing like "what could the unknown word mean in context, Johnny", aite ? [↩]