Monday, July 15, 2013

Double Jeopardy

Here's how you know you're dealing with cultists: they use words in abnormal ways, recoding the meaning.  Thus, gay marriage.  It's not a broadening or adapting or evolution of the word.  It's a perversion.  "Ministry of Truth" stuff.  Room 101, as I recall -- 1984.  The PC police will punish you until you agree.  You'll be fired, or prosecuted, or boycotted, or picketed ... whatever.  Freedom of thought is the freedom to agree with them.  There is no free marketplace of ideas, because that smacks of capitalism, which is far too paternalistic and masculine, ie, bad -- the one intolerability.

Thus with Zimmerman.  I of course did not follow the trial.  Justice is an impossibility.   Either the innocent are wrongly prosecuted, or an innocent victim has been harmed and no process can undo that harm.  This is pristine logic, idealistic, and therefore impracticable.  The reality is we have to go through the motions.  My read, fairly uninformed, is that Zimmerman was out looking to protect the neighborhood, Trayvon was out for skittles.  Walking in the rain in a hoodie.  Up against the houses, maybe, for some sort of protection against rain? -- because he was a 16 year old kid and curious enough to want to look into folks' windows?  Not my particular thing when I was that age.  But I did worse.  That is a crazy stupid age to be.  I'm very lucky I got out of it healthy.

I expect that Trayvon  id hide in bushes and jump out, etc.  Hide and cower, run away, or confront.  All three are fair options.  Nothing wrong with any of them.  Given a tough boy who posts images of himself with guns, seems obvious what he'd do.  Maybe I'm wrong.  What seems very much less likely is that George was a mad dog killer out coon hunting.  Which is exactly what our current "protesters" adamantly assert, so much so that they need to set fires and break windows.  It's like when your team wins, or loses, a game.  What's a brother gonna do? Well some of them riot.  It's enough to turn a mild-mannered white man into a racist, nearly.

I know a nice middle-aged straight-married black couple, and tonight I asked them why they weren't out rioting.  Kidding.

The Incompetent in the White House inserted himself into this case, like a penis into a vagina or anus, by saying if he had a son it would look like Trayvon    Gratuitous, arrogant and unstatesmanlike.  Obama acted stupidly.  Now his Justice Department -- "Ministry of Justice" -- is making noise about attacking Zimmerman on a civil rights beef.  Honestly, so much for double jeopardy.  Isn't that in the Constitution?  -- like, um, Right Number Five? I mean, we were explicitly expressly granted by the State ten rights. Ten that we were allowed to have, by the government.  Now it's less than that?  I am shocked.   I guess it all depends upon what the meaning of is is, or in this case, the meaning of offense: no person shall "be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy..."  Offense here must not mean an actual action. It means the particular label a politician or bureaucrat happened to decide to use, and at any later time the same action may be differently described and any suitably arbitrary action taken against the "perp" -- the disapproved person.

Sounds like a recoding to me.  Some cult member must be making the decisions.

So, marriage, no longer between male-female, as even polygamy has it, but between any two adults.  But why two only?  And why not siblings or parent-child, etc.  My mind cannot contend with the permutations.  In our current Looking-Glass world, the Humpty-Dumpty Principle of Lexicography is enforced.  Words mean whatever we wish them to mean.  Narcissism reflected back upon itself, as an infinite regress ad absurdum.

I heard, again as before, a man on the radio, with a black dialect if not himself black, who spent a few moments explaining that he was about to say something, and than rolled out the prematurely hoary trope that it was impossible for any non-White to be racist.  Well statements like that, for all their predictability through familiarity, still thrust a searing dagger of ice through my mind.  How do you correct a cultist of his heretical redefinitions?  Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer, or an Ascended Master, or a wise Essene, or a magician, or an alien from Venus.  Anything but who he said he was.  I AM.  You cannot correct insanity.  At best, you heal it, somehow.

Thus, "racism" is no longer a meaningful word.  When dealing with a liberal, or a black person (same thing, 95% of the time (Democrat Party affiliation (that's a solid A grade! (And what about those poor Uncle Tom wannabe-white non-authentic blacks in the 5%? -- that's, like, not even showing up to class!)))), I hereby resolve to use in any hypothetical discussion not the word racism, but colorism.  It is impossible to define our terms, if the same phonetic sound is used by different parties to mean opposite things.  It's not a double meaning, it's double talk.  Actual racism means judging people by their race rather than their individual conduct.  Liberal racism means being white and having an opinion at odds with liberals.

I hadn't quite realized before, that we were dealing with, literally, a cult.  It's the perversion of language, and therefore meaning, and therefore thought, that finally makes it click.  Thank you, conventional and sincere but enslaved-to-illogic black man on the radio, for clarifying the matter for me.


No comments: