Blabla is bad

The sentiment “blabla is bad” is a self-fulfilling justification for everything that happens after it. Because blabla is bad other bad things will happen but they are ok because blabla is bad. In fact we have to do bad things because blabla forced us to do it, after all blabla is bad. Even things that we ourselves once said where bad now become good because blabla is bad.

Questioning the statement “blabla is bad” would be saying “wait is blabla bad”? Who told us that blabla is bad? Have we meant blabla and formed a direct opinion? Can we ever consider blabla to be good again? What would blabla need to do so that we think blabla is good again? Why was blabla once good and now suddenly bad? What exactly did blabla do to become bad?

This leads to the uncomfortable truth that we personally don’t know whether blabla is bad or not, we have been told from other people whom we assume are telling us the truth when they say blabla is bad. In fact these other people must be telling us the truth otherwise they themselves would be bad. They then would become the self-fulling justification of our own bad behaviour, i.e. our own bad behaviour by lying to our own people saying blabla is bad (when fact blabla is good) would then be the justification for our bad (well now good actions but previously bad actions) actions against blabla.

It is literally no longer possible for blabla to reform, reclaim or reestablish the sentiment we had before: blabla is good. We don’t provide a route back to the blabla is good sentiment. Because blabla is bad is being told to us and we don’t decide ourselves. So even if blabla does become good, those telling us he is bad, keep telling us that he is bad and we keep believing the hype.

Therefore blabla will always remain bad. Blabla isn’t the given the opportunity to change for the good because we don’t want that. Because then our narrative falls apart. The basis for the entire narrative is blabla is bad, without that we might be questioned about our actions, and it might turn out that our actions aren’t really good … they are actually bad …. but that’s ok because, thankfully, blabla is still bad.

So the next time someone says blabla is bad, just say blabla is still bad. It adds the possibility that blabla might change or that we might actually know what blabla is really like. It is a form of character assassination to say blabla is bad.

Weirdly what is not being said who is good? Blabla is bad would imply that there is a scalar on which at the far end is blabla but who is at the other end? As soon as someone is bad, there is a comparison to someone else. Who is this person of mystery, who is it that is soooo good that blabla is bad?

Appeasement won’t work with blabla because blabla is bad and unreformable, blabla will never change because blabla is bad. Even if we find a peace with blabla, because blabla is bad, blabla will break that peace and continue being bad.

blabla is bad as long we don’t allow blabla to become good again. We have the key in our hands, not blabla.

This argument reminds us of Orwells 1984 - the constant need for an enemy made suppression simple and easy. Because we’re at war, we need to live badly, and we are at war because Eurasia is bad, making us good.

Now replace blabla with Putin you have 2022

[Part of the Taboo Tiles series.]