Poem Shards

 
The 'story voice'
 a draft scree
For me there is this voice that I call a 'story voice'.  And there are obviously
different tones and senstiments of these voices.  Yes, these voices.  And if
there is a 'story' there to be told the 'voice' is what people use to blat on
about it.
So you can listen to real peopole chatting in a room.  Hear what they say, what
they are saying.  Listen to people who aren't confused or discussing issues of
definitions of words, but just using words.  Listen to snippets that you hear
folks hollar talking.  And when you hear something you like chuckle to yourself
and enjoy it (in what ever way works for you).
My story voice is pretty much mine.  And whenever I go off into a story I use
it.  And even if I pretned and try to talk in some other voice, ultimately that
voice must still be mine.  So I can have people say things, describe things, go
into their own story voice as part of my story.  I can include the literary
farce of quotes from sighted material that does not, in fact, exist.  Ultimately
whatever voice I pretned to use it is still my own.  
As the voice, no matter what I pretend it to be, is still my own, if I use it as
a way to incite (what, what would I incite?  Can it be good?  Can I incite human
compasion and cessastion of Cold War rethorical patriotism ( of despotic
regimes?  Who would do that?)) ; if I use my story voice as a way to incite then
I can not claim that it wasn't my voice.  I must own that voice as well.
  So, for example, if I wrote an anti-[ethnic or political identity of the
reader] propaganda of a scurilous kind, and it resulted in acts of mayhem or
what-not (of an incited nature, can it ever be good?) against [ethnic or
political people with whom the reader (you) identify] then that would be my bad.
 My bad.  Opps.  I created a social problem.  It is akin to a literary fart. 
but in the case of real hate against real people, if people are harmed or hurt
then those people really are harmed and hurt.
  Why am I putting these vauge mush-thoughts upon this page?  I suppose I am
putting this brain-pudding here because I want to say that as a literary
creature, one with 'access' to the International community, I have a so-called
voice.  I call it a voice so it is.  Here I am, BP, here in the twenty-first
century.  And I have a voice.
So if I start putting up literature that refers to great crimes against
humanity?  I have photographed some things that show what some believe some
foriegn regime does to it's own citizens.  And it isn't pretty.  I could set up
my website so that if anyone using an IP address from that country would always
see the propaganda that these folks (who say that this foreign country tortures)
put up (in a public place in a major city) purported as to actions of this
foreign government.
I could put that crap up there.  And then I would be forwarding the propaganda
to you.  So as I have no proof as to the acuracy of these accounts concerning
said group, group having been sucessful repressed in illustrious country of
alledged foreign despots.  So what do I know?  So I don't do it.
If I did it that would mark me as a partisan.  Besides I am praying for these
folks.  If you live in a foreign dictatorship then I wish that your dictatorship
should collapse in the way that least harms your people and the world at large. 
May your revolutions always be of the heart where you bleed the falacies of the
past and embrace your fellows (in whatever allegorical way is non-creepy to
you).  May you always bask in the imperious glow of your own good ideas and the
good ideas of others.  May you always seek to understand the differences so as
to overcome them to the point that we don't have a diplomacy of 'piss on'
piss-off.  that is so twentith century.

When regimes do their propagandistic piddlings upon, like playing an insulting
movie or what-not (what not?  is there nothing that they won't do) how does the
rest of the world take that?  It is like these people imagine a world where a
country really is personfied and that the 'image' of a country can be insulted. 
What does that even mean?  Insult to injury?  Everyone knows (anyone who has
studied great philosophers) that the world 'back-atchas' insults.  And no one
needs to do or say anything.  We just duly note those who use politiness and
decorum and who respects their fellows and sees others not as charactures of
some evil put forward by jingoism from a dead age.  And we understand that this
play with in a play of those who don't get it, will be rejected even by those
within their own societies who stand in chains and are forced to watch.  The
more rediculous the regime, the more severe the insult . . . the less
incredulity that the world will express.  The world, the polite world, pretends
the insult away.  How could anyone be so like a pig?  How could a whole nation
be that way?  No, it is the geriatric who  poke this barb.  What is it that they
trust their lance into?  If there is a purpose, a doctor who will lance a
festering boil that needs to be lanced . . . an insult could be for this and
then we can all have a great laugh.  the puss is extracted.  A purposful use of
a barb or a lancing and seering insult.

Yuck yuck yuck.  Masters of war are as jackels.  They get the fate that they
have deemed for themselves.  The more swinish they are the more likely it is
that their fates are as the swine.  All creatures deserve what is their lot. 
How are humans more than villans and murdorous hordes?  If you need an answer to
that question then you are just being playful.  We need to get along and
cold-war era propaganda ought be left to those who don't know better.  Only
children of mind resort to those tired and cleched terminologies.  There are not
rival nations.  Just really powerful people who asssume to squack for a national
identity.  Armies may march.  They can call theem the people's but they are
their own.  They maay be of a nation.  But ultimate the armies of humanity are
alll of the people's of the world, any peoples.  Because the boys who make up
these armies have been raised by moral people who don't want hatred as an
international pasttime.


This is the better world that those realists ought to make social.  If they
can't be social then how can they call themselves socialists?

If they can't be social 
then how can they call 
themselves socialists?

Billy P
  Jan 25, 2011