i find it near impossible to hold an opinion,
and force myself into dialectics -
i can only fathom possessing an opinion
if i have leverage in it -
               what good is having an opinion
however morally righteous it is,
if there's only a status quo at the end of it?
why do (esp. journalists) feel the need
to have so many opinions, about issues:
they have no power-broker status over them,
i.e. no leverage?
                 often i looked at the country
folk in poland, and yes, their lives were simple,
they had no urban psyche disturbing them
with the simplicity of their lives,
and then i found out:
            urban distractions really occupy
one's mind,
           but the peace of the countryside is
really disturbing, since it has to be perfected,
the peace cannot become agitating -
it must be perfect to the point where it
does not seem inquisitive on the basis of
the urban environment of:
   why aren't you agitated, split-second
buddhist, meditative,
                        why do you maintain
focus on one thing, rather than a kaleidoscope
of change?
             but i found that the majority of
opinions are unnecessary,
   unnecessary because there is no power
leverage to put an opinion into practice...
an image that springs to mind: hot-air
balloons,
          i can't change the palestinian-israeli
conflict,
                and i can't invest myself in
a situation, a place, that i have never been too,
but given the current
                  anti-israeli rhetoric in play,
i have more of a question than an opinion:
          did the germans do the utmost evil
to the jews with the holocaust,
   or are jews actually doing more evil to
themselves after the holocaust,
  becoming fascists?
                   personally i think the latter -
the jews are currently doing more
  harm to themselves than what the germans
did to them...
     because you can do what you are doing,
hiding behind the facade of a comfortable
life...
                 but it's still pointless for me
to have an opinion,
                i can't dress the ******* thing in
stitches and band-aids,
   because i hardly think that my opinion
has leverage,
       i am not a power-broker,
      i'd simply end up as a self-righteous ponce
who "needs" to have an opinion...
   ref. to the ten commandments -
thank god there's an aristocratic thou shall not:
people seem to forget there's no
                       thou will not -
  like any french ponce might add:
i shall have wine in late morning,
   cognac in late afternoon...
  and coffee in the evening...
  airs, perfumes, handkerchiefs, waving
     insolently to debrief boredom
  and empty space...
  with the ****** english nobleman simply
adding: ya'h to boot;
ra ra.
                   but the shall not
is the ambiguity of the concrete i will -
          there is no determination of a will
with a posit of choice...
   personally, i imagine very much akin
to a cinema of consequence -
          a video game,
where i can see all, and i mean all the choice
i have ever made, and play a movie
of being allowed to see the opposite choice,
whenever i turned right,
   in this cinema of consequence i get to
play the result had i chosen left...
            i see the afterlife as non-congregational,
solipsistic even,
     less a labyrinth, and more an incubator,
a diamond womb...
                          +, -, 1, 0, -, 1, +, 0....
that's a representation of heaven for me...
                             its a post-script
   of history with hindsight,
  and the hindsight of having made one choice
already, in death, to make the opposite choice...
perhaps not in the scenario of a cinema,
perhaps unconsciously living
       out the alternative sequence of choices...
but to hold opinions in a bloated journalistic
style is so unnecessary for me,
                        like i said:
i hold opinions over what i have leverage on,
what's the point of having opinions
that i allows me no power to formalise them,
and change the current situation i have
an opinion residing over?
          spring clean, waste of space...
        and the people who are the most
vehement in their righteousness weilding
an opinion, are the most powerless people,
mainly journalists,
                        let's say: only journalists...
personally: if philosophers hated poets
so much as to be excluded from the platonic
                            utopian republic,
then the poets should turn to the philosophers
and retort: keep these ******* out
  (i.e. the journalists);
it's only natural that (a) philosophers abhor
            language being anything but, conversation
and thinking,
   or that (b) poets should not have someone
they deem below them,
  and that it shouldn't be journalists;
after the phone-hacking scandals at
          the news of the world:
hardly journalists, more like leeches.