IN VII PARTS
PART I: IMPARTING PROTEST AND UNDERSTANDING
2024 WINTER TREATISE ON CORNERSTONE CHANGE
PREFACE
Do not condemn them – your neighbors. This might well be their paradise. Remember, forgiveness gravitates toward the mourners in this world … the mourners and the wayfarers. Only they feel there must be more – than just idol self, and more akin than engineering idle changeover. Only they burden themselves from tiny creature onward, fearful of every single drop of rain harshly drumming upon their sensitive cocoon. Forlorn the shower of rougher downpours to come, postponing the flight of true Monarch transition. Into a world of convoluted wings and intertangled antennae, the butterfly net is sure to fall.
IN CONFERENCE WITH THE DEVIL
Re-signing the course of humanity across the void of Silent Reserve, aboard a privateer ship of stolen reason, theirs is a singular drafting of vengeance flight tied to wayward steering and struck in the aft-spinning of a bent and worthless rudder. Christen-launched using spoiled champagne, flying the flag of the bedeviled and the dying, they are destined never to know safe harbor or to heed with any bearing the storm’s ultimate direction and fury. I, who am forced to watch and walk the churning deck, instilled with the evening keg of drunken warfare, find only such aftermath and clear bounty on rational treasure as where wreck-strewn sands are gleaned by the coastal spray of freedom’s wash.
For seven minutes I am given allowance to speak. Upon cutoff, for five minutes you preach contrariness. For several minutes more I am digressed to answer your retort. For five minutes after, you but preach some more. And so on. Eventually, there was little to be said at all beyond your preaching. With more than a half of hour gone, you proudly pronounce your verdict to others: “You know what your problem is, you don’t know how to listen!” Thirty years of experience had to be compressed in less than thirty minutes of tactful witness: time made even more delinquent by urgent breaks of trying and ranting disapproval. Spitting out your educated doctrines, your pat rejoinders, your much-heralded and much-wielded scant interpretation of Greek and Hebrew. How can a doctor treat someone if he does not know what the symptoms are? And if he does not know how the patient feels, where it hurts, or screams abnormal, how can he diagnose where the blockage is, from thus to pinpoint the malady and propose a treatment? Even a psychiatrist, who continually slumbers through his prognosis phase, realizes enough to listen first before taking to couch a prescription-cover of a cure.
Consider also a persecuted child who from the date of his birth has known only parental abuse and resentment from his peers. Somehow, he manages to grow (not fully develop) into adulthood. Is he not to become suspicious of all people, of any woman in prospect of marriage? If his own mother has despised him, why should a strange woman ever look upon him fondly and with longing? If his own father has hated him and regularly paddled him, why should his heavenly Father not also chastise him incessantly with disgrace? So much for John 3:16. And how shall this person ever come to faithfully adore, much less secure a corresponding love for Christ, which is the crux of His crucifixion and his sought-after salvation, when the Spirit (High Wind) has blown toward him only the tattered remains of a throw-rug Comforter?
When I requested audience, you belittled my coming. When I pleaded sympathy, you would not hearken to a single word with respect. When I brought at least a vagabond ticket of temporary status among the questioning travelers of life, you cast me off the train like a hobo in streaming depression. What shall be judged of all those seeking higher counselling and spiritual shelter from you, except “knowledge is wasted upon such deplorable creatures of darkness as yourselves”. Glorify yourself in the present-day lockup and lodging concessions for squatters. Mirror with minimized devotion the hyper-dimensions of the Lord. Meanwhile, give bare coverage to the freezing and only unsealed provisions of perishables to the faint and hard-tack starving. Dismiss the pains of the colicky child whereby you provide no clinic of medicinal relief, no insulating side-walls of sufficient physical warmth, not even a café menu of nutritional vitamins. For whose delight are the needy served if you care nothing for their human hearts and downcast lives? All your dress linens and jewelry are but religious trappings of dead relics; your product rituals in showroom model of Bakelite soldiers – such as would arrive in fine order of sturdy array – outwardly solid but inwardly crushed. It is mercy I desire, not sacrifice or burnt offerings (Hosea 6: 6). Therefore, every oblation begins with submission to a cross.
Indeed, you have your gods. Yourselves are your gods, and you may keep them. Come tomorrow we die, lost and separated from salvation, no doubt you will soothe your conscience (again) with more false idolatry and vain prayer. Doctors of theology are prone to hang fabrics online by their choice tapestry of homemade supplements, missionary appeals, and seasonally-offered discount of advertised (promised) dispensation. However, when I petitioned for the smallest grain of faith implantation to sustain the seedling growth of supernatural life, you failed to offer the grounds for even scant plotting of greenhouse husbandry. It was not untouched visions I was grasping; nor even hands-on miracles, that even in my suffering, a partial healing might be felt … should only by some measure of speaking in tongues and testifying, cause doves to descend or, pray tell, mad creatures stay hidden in the darkness. No matter how strong the flash or how close the framing, we can hear no shot of picture taken.
First and Last
The first among the angelic hosts
must bear heaven as their only certainty.
And the least sot in earth and water
must witness only devils as his drunken masters.
Ordinary selves long to touch that which is unreachable
for all but the vain and the dying;
whereas in the extraordinary must agitate
the revitalizing chemistry of God,
and new hope rendered in eternal life.
I am a simple soul,
with no real evidence of my coming or being here,
except by which breath is exhaled back in the universe.
It would have sufficed for now to have seen … creation reborn.
If during a debate, both parties do no more than banter back and forth, and static-resist to conduct logic, never once pausing to contemplate, only reluctantly and faintly hesitating to acknowledge some minor point of contravening nature (“Yes, I think you may be right, but …”), nor is ever taken aback to inject criticism of his own beliefs, then what have you? Or, instead, they muse cleverly and sarcastically about the other side’s failures, personal faults, past and current sins, or remark with troubling use of language the demographic consequences of the opponent’s views; together, such that an impartial observer or visiting space alien would have to conclude that neither really wants to do well for themselves in this forced conjugal meeting; then a trial separation should be called, with annulment of their coming-together, still spiritually caged, reunion.
Are we not all brain-damaged? Tragic stories are told of people who through accident, infestation, or the like, lose their connection between apparent seeing and consequential speaking, or are no longer able to correlate reality with reasoning. How often have I engaged in conversations with people about the general problems in this world! Using myself as the main reservoir of fill-water, and holding mankind’s sinful pride and stubbornness afloat, I watch as listeners nod their heads in total agreement; then when I try to bring the case home — inundating myself awash in guilt — suddenly they turn glassy-eyed and stare back at me in bewilderment and astonishment. Subconsciously, they begin to fathom the impact of their own inadequacy and culpability, causing them to become extremely defensive and moving brusquely to ward off any involving obtrusiveness. As long as I was talking about ‘generalities’ or about other “lost souls” in this deranged world who must change personally in order to effect change universally, they were in wholehearted accord, even interjecting some social chastisement or the need for authoritarian pressure; but as soon as I intimated or called for personal action, themselves changing, psychologically the connection between ‘seeing’ (realizing) and reasoning (responsibly reacting) was broken.
Breaching the faith of innocents by the open haggling of nonsense and the obvious flaunting of legitimacy; be it returned again, a lie against you. Because you sit there on your pedestals, on your professionally accorded chairs of honorable standing, pimping the worst kinds of rabid street verbiage like a diseased hooker’s taunt, no decision of worthwhile truth is ever activated. Unless and until things get so out of hand, the hot-flashed and the scurrilously-spurred take to impressive streets rioting, or your sick followers take on a cross-town rampage to purge the world of your reported ‘villains’ by race or actual political race-electors, or maybe start beating up women and snuffing out babies in their cribs — unless there is noticeable and significant bloodshed, you will call no ‘foul’ or want to broker a peace by tongue and groove: “No harm done; they’re just non-violent protestors and over-heated arsonists; spontaneously inducing their way into a mutually-fanned burning of drugged-out adulthood”.
One need only look back at Ferguson, Baltimore, and other paradise urban islands of moral asphyxiation, to attest the sophistry of their protests. Like teenagers, they don’t want their parents (the police) to tell them when to sleep, what to eat, where to go, how late they can stay out, etc., in parallel attitude, when to fight, what group flash plan by which to shoplift, who to rob and beat senseless in order to support their habit addiction. Inebriated and in riled disingenuousness, these rioters resemble for all the world like overpaid NFL players or MLB hacks who would not bend a knee or raise their arm over their heart to honor God and the American flag … the ‘terror’ of which brought them such riches and spoiled thankfulness. Still, they have never been uniformly (ad)dressed so plainly before: all they who stand by evil shall in time become indistinguishable from their demon escorts and friendship alliances — deserving, therefore, a far-more-simmering poach than even an equatorial abode. Despite a reachable Heaven, an insuperable God never comes close to being human; despite a Christ in bleeding touch of grail, an indifferent ‘good’ never yields itself to transfusion.
Whenever groups of men gather in emergency, all they have in common are their basest emotions. Still, they gather for their protests, and they shout for their rallies, remonstrating with pride their supposed higher ideals, their moral standing, their lofty goals; but seeking all the time a witness to their stardom, more donations and gifts, and an increase in privileges. A couple of decades ago, and a couple of decades before that, and a couple of decades before that, America has had what it pride-fully referred to as “peace movements”. And every other decade or so since, America has involved itself in wars and regional conflicts. When will society ever learn, the prerequisite to peace is a solemn vigil on “personal goodness”. And there can be no apprehension of a real resting place, without a hard-won wilderness campaign … spiritually-led andaligned with faith, lawful duty, and the dedicated overcoming of drought offerings.
Libertarians and independents have rudimentary thought of how they “think” they could settle the world’s problems, and by so doing, escape being painted into the proverbial political corner, — rationalizing away human failings or any dilemma by encapsulating ‘evil’ within a wider and wider cordon of appeasement (making everything legal, hence inoffensive), especially if it didn’t affect them personally. Thus, they reasoned that they could para-militarize the Bad (the immature) and, in time, make revolutionaries of the Good (the adult) … until the child of their own loins became a drug addict, a Manson murderer, or a Hannibal usurper. Excerpted from their reasoning is the testament of “what lies on the bathroom floor of relief for libertarians are the like carcasses of the same slaughtered ‘liberalists’, who don’t really believe in ‘truth’ or ‘honorable service’; nor any force of Nature or in Heaven making prayerful accommodation with a forged and defective peace”. The only gold casting they accept is one made in their own image.
Be it taken vainly, I often sympathize with the protesters’ feelings. Scaring up, yet, that even the most sincere of agitators usually march not in earnest, but, rather, in confusion and wrongheadedness, most often exercising the appeal of appeasement at any cost as their alibi of demonstrable justification. Employing their own spin on ‘love your enemies’, they bid us withhold our aggression by overlooking their transgression, though enacted time and again brutally upon innocents and upon ourselves and others. Why “Christian”, which you claim to despise; and why now? Should it not be Christian always, by which the encouragement comes to turn the other cheek, to bless them who persecute us … thus, according to which we may render nigh forgiveness and lend them our cloak of covering grace? However, all this, the protesters do not generate by their actions – a kindly gist or, in practice, refrain from aggressively hurting others. Have they now become ‘thankful Christians’, with hardly a baptism from sin and a capacity for self-control and a basic understanding of real justice? Is it by faith they now act, or is it more in liken to a criminal caught in the act, presuming, only now, out of dreadful concern to scour every minor relatable text and trite footnote taken in desperation and daring precedence that might, perchance, exonerate him?
Being against something is especially easy on two counts: if (1) taking a stand does not require a personal sacrifice on your part, and (2) the prospect of contrary enlightenment or retributive results coming true are remote. Both counts, however, may be self-intuitive, though without conviction. An example of the first would be an anti-smoking campaign by someone who does not smoke or is not strongly addicted. The second may be illustrated by protests against all pesticide spraying by farmers, having no inkling of the damage to crops that pests cause, and whose ‘vision of farming’ would involve horticulture practiced under glass (greenhouses) or genetic manipulation. In the interim protesters want to have their cake and eat it, too, or in this case, their fruits and vegetables.
These protest ‘cons’ can be exactly that: efforts to con others or oneself. Exemplification of “being against all wars” rings with commendable rhetoric, but it could be translated as “against all wars that don’t involve you personally, or your friends, or your nation directly, or the expending of resources you claim not to be able to afford”. With disingenuousness, the rights and oppression status of other nationalities — people longing to be free — may seem less worthy than your own, and likewise inferentially, so are their lives. The crying deaths of thousands of people around the globe each day does not move you. Yet let one American shed an ounce of blood or be killed in a country he has no place being in (without expecting as much), then the air is filled with shouts of human tragedy and wasted lives.
Keep on dreaming; keep on pretending in the goodness of your enemies to spare us all the inevitability of war. Not until a world meeting is called and everyone feels and thinks beyond personal selves or their own national interest; not until diplomats no longer voice temper-laden agendas; not until a religious ambassador no longer signs with his symbol only; not until frail personalities no longer see through thick spectacles; not until the strong man stops strutting his power over the weak; until then, only a vestige of honor and identity remains. Until then, there can be no peaceful concession to unpeaceable protests (protesters).
Sociological reasons often cited by protesters are not without some truth or merit: the burden of fighting, for example, placed mainly on the least advantaged (historically poor whites and urban blacks). The rationality then follows the line of “Why should American soldiers fight in the Middle East over oil; e.g., Operation Desert Storm against Saddam Hussein in 1990 -1991, which primarily served to benefit only defense contractors, the upper crust, and the materially well off?” But a similar equivocation could be made during WWII as to why American soldiers of the lowest rung in society, and almost all Protestants and Catholics, should be drafted to free the Jews, the Muslims in Africa, the Chinese, the Thai, and so on. Natural self-survival and national interests would seemingly demand that none or only some of these countries and peoples were worth sacrificing our precious American blood. Shall it ever be likely that some future historian will analyze today’s current conflicts in Asia, Africa, or South America with respect to soldier identity (black, white, poor, rich, and so forth)? Given the numerous conflicts that are occurring even now, with unimaginable cruelty and savagery, and yet almost unnoticed or waged without care of intercession, will some future generation look back at us and point with the finger of indictment: “You let us be raped, pillaged, burned, maimed or murdered, and occupied … and did nothing!” History sorely represses itself, in keeping with its own laziness and incredulity, without the bother to sanction out royalties or to even give gratuity notice for each additional programming replay. Should not the average American, the beneficiary of republican freedom, be always in debt to the sacrifice of the Revolutionary Patriots, instead of tearing down their statues (Gottschalk, 2020)? Should not the youth, especially the blacks, honor those Union soldiers who fought and may have died manifesting their freedom? Or, sarcastically citing (siding), should we just say, they (both the soldiers and today’s youth) were merely doing the selfish thing in lockstep… with little quibbling over Christian ideals?
Is that all you want to know? The meaning of life and the answer to, why was I born? As if through the use of disguise, to capture a truth unspecified? Whereas I have spent most of my adult life trying to tell mathematicians and supposedly intelligent scientists that one plus one equals two, and that one plus one plus one ad infinitum does not infinity make. And you, woman, would it be unfair or presumptuous of me to say, that you have spent your entire adult life looking for some tall, dark, rich, handsome stranger; and maybe as well that great and exciting career which will bless you with success and happiness, so then you can retire your dreams and build that lovely mansion on the hill, where draped in luxury and resources drained from your underlings, you lord it over the people below and live happily ever after? You have never understood nor paid the garnering cost of ‘accumulating all that you desire’. Further indisposed, you have never stopped to consider about yourself — even if I were to meet that desirable stranger, would I seem to him presentable, personable, beautiful enough to deserve his attention and life-long devotion? After how great a struggle and striven effort shall you deem yourself worthy of that glorious career and high compensation? By what fancy footwork or financial trickery shall you acquire that mansion display overseeing all the little people shuffling in your underbrush? Are you woke yet from any of your dreams? Erelong to ask of life, nonetheless, what is its ultimate meaning. As always, it would never suffice that Nature, the Universe, or the Heavens grant you an answer — if in your contemplation, you are unable to receive and understand it. With what meeting of minds shall anyone ever meet with your approval? From what indeterminate sweep of home-searching shall you glean an answer?
One can appreciate the dissertation warning issued for society concerning the dangers of over-tolerance, as might be wagered on “misunderstood” criminals. In the gruesome light of terrorism, hate crimes, mass murders, and assorted other crime sprees, extending to these criminals an open hand and open heart of ‘understanding’ would have a similar effect on the social biological system as a COPD patient being given a free pack of cigarettes to smoke. Under more civil (non-criminal) circumstances, the petitioner cleverly uses the device of summoned ‘understanding’ as a defensive ploy – preventing outsiders from inspecting or calling out his ideas or atrocious acts with any assignment of blame or personal responsibility. Simultaneously, it serves as a ruse, a bid for delay of game, until such a time when others of like mind adjoin or conversely others of a disagreeable mind are foiled: when, at last, they can understand ‘where we are coming from’.
There are several subversive catches to understanding the illicit, the obnoxious, the depraved too soon or too easily letting them slide. Petitioning for the pardoning of an unreformed murderer is an obvious example, which is not mollified on the basis of ‘he had no real mother or father’, he’s ‘poor or black’, or some other comportment of extenuating circumstance. A spy from a communist country doesn’t ‘deserve’ special treatment just because his own home government is harsh and brutally demanding. The pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor didn’t deserve a ‘fair hearing’ just because they were compelled by their imperialistic commanders into a December 7th attack. “Fair hearing” in these cases is not a right or even a privilege; it is an extension of grace for those already in assumption of their guilt. A common rejoinder in many old Western movies about vigilantism was “we shouldn’t stoop to their level; anything less than peaceably capturing, awarding of a fair trial, and maybe allowing an appeal, followed at some point by a nice stint in prison, would be tantamount to a deprivation of full access to true justice”. Does that mean we should have “understood” Japan’s pre-WWII economic circumstances and not have prosecuted the war against them? Other peoples, other cultures, other nations were suffering under the ghastly conquistador ideals of Japanese colonialism. Neither shall a single, clear-cut incident of individual victimhood necessarily entail a reduction in punishment or a singularity of response, which may itself fall under the universality of war as conventional (invasion) or nuclear (atomic bomb). Only afterward could an impeding force (the United States and General MacArthur) grant special forbearance and grace to the offending Japan for all the heinous crimes committed by the Imperial government and its people. Even within the realm of that authority, some crimes committed by individuals exceeded the pale of simple comprehension and forgiveness (Jung, 2018; Kikoy, 2018). Whenever a subjective assessment is made of a projected (called-for) response seems appropriate, it presumes that the party involved has the tools of objective calibrations to reckon and mete it out accordingly. Unfair standards of personal morality exist everywhere, especially in America. The liberal media can quickly spin extremely radical and violent abortion activists into images of freedom-loving patriots protecting women’s rights; while dousing with gas a publicity campaign encouraging the imprisonment of extremely placid sit-in pro-lifers.
More systematically, the push to ‘understand’ clearly unacceptable behavior merely encourages more unacceptable behavior, which by pressure of distension, causes society to ‘make fit’ formerly unwearable, grimy, brazenly torn, immodestly-fashioned, and/or morally-wrinkled outfits. Again, one need only look back on homosexuality. Barely 50 years ago, a recognized scientific disorder and mental disfiguration was transformed into an ‘understood’, ‘tolerated’, eventually ‘glorified’ institution (Drescher, 2015). No longer sequestered or even triaged for medical modulation, it didn’t take long for society to accept the anal, the acutely disgusting, and family-disruptive as perfectly normal. With this submission of entrenchment, there soon followed an incitement of pure viciousness by which the government, the scientific establishment, and social media excoriated and persecuted anyone who sounded the biological alarm or even mentioned its deleterious effects, including HIV, the shady adulteration of the Boy Scouts, the commissioning of pedophilic priests in the Catholic Church, and the corruptive sexualization of our children in the public schools, all of which are a testament to the appeasement ‘understanding’ of the progressive gay agenda. Assimilated afflictions now include the devolvement of our military into gun-carrying wimps, the infiltration of our corporations and boardrooms with DEI, and the infectious uptick in group (racial, sexual, ethnic) division and violence across all layers of society, with each competing force seeking ‘command control’ over all others, turning children, parents, and families into subjugated slaves.
Of a more obvious nature, suspected psychological ‘understanding’ jaunts with mis-giving, that is, becomes spiked with a hypocritical attitude, whenever (and typically only when) one’s sacred personal apple cart is being upset or turned over. A liberal who believes wholeheartedly in open borders is only welcoming of the immigration invasion as long as it remains far away, as in the Southern States (the red states). Objection and gross violence quickly occurs when these same migrants are shipped into their own neighborhood of Chicago, New York City, Martha’s Vineyard, and unlikely vicinities (Nerozzi, 2022). Today’s “Democratic” fixation on open borders — allowing millions of uncouth, unsocialized, and under-educated immigrants, with violent, destructive, and often psychotic tendencies, to harass the general population, to steal, rape, and brutalize everyday Americans, to destroy the economy and pummel the efforts to maintain a clean, natural environment, is a perfect example of disordered reasoning, or, rather, a contempt for actual reasoning. The politicians promote the invasion because they selfishly want to retain power by transforming the country into a cultural-less blob — a know-nothing admixture of senseless and sadistic animals, easily spurred into mindless convulsions of troubling chaos, and easily hypnotized into voting for any party that promises to give them ‘more’ of everything. And what little remains of the native population has been so brainwashed by the corrupt state-endorsed educational system to just keep voting these amoral a-hole politicians back into office. Is it not to be assessed, then, from a karma point of view, that everyone is getting what they deserve; i.e., their ‘just deserts’, even though their promised meals are laced with self-injected poison?
A black person who claims to stand completely behind universal equality and cooperative existence among all races, genders, ethnic groups, etc. suddenly becomes apoplectic when an Asian sues over his bright child being denied advanced learning placement because ‘they are over their quota’; or when a white man claims to have lost his long-time job due to the deliberate maneuvering of reverse discrimination. Totally unappealing to any member of LGBTQ+ community becomes the concept of a society honoring any employment opportunity on a colorless, sexless, merit-only basis. Most of these ‘people’, who don’t even proclaim themselves as ‘people’ as you would have once known them or recognized them in a normal state, don’t realize that they are now just stooges and not really living in any ‘human community’, but in a set-aside establishment estate where they take potshots from over the iron fences at anyone not deserving of their guarded level of respect. Like traditional members of the better-known rich establishment, who popularized the notion of noblesse oblige and would always claim that they really ‘care about the poor’, any feelings of sympathy or equitability they may express toward others is purely a matter of deceit.
Had we, as a society, actually matured into an honorable and respectful civilization, then the entire predisposition for settlement by means of protests and lawsuits would be viewed as unnecessary. In simplistic analogy, there would be no imputed frustration of government whistleblowers struggling to point out unfair treatment of citizens, interparty collusion, massive wrongdoing, or financial mischief. Each worker would be doing his or her job faithfully and conspicuously. Incidents of fraud, error, or just occasional deception would be reported to an honest management – whose first thought would be to repair the system, not tar and feather the whistleblower, threaten him with transfer, demotion, or even physical harm … in other words, endeavoring to protect the sinister bureaucratic institution before exposure, literally and viciously by ‘killing the messenger’. Isn’t this also a form of ‘understanding’ – an impelled understanding of things as they are instead of should be. That we all ‘understand’ too well – as the pridefully-cultivated fault-lines of an ego-centric geographic earth.
Record the faith, speak the truth, carry the challenge, receive the blessing; call ‘change’… when only to make amends to life: after drinking the Spirit. I must not be argumentative. We are each ugly and much rejected; held to be of fallow worth in the invisible strain of our fellows’ night-blindness. We shall yet make ourselves a sunrise sparkle in Heaven’s celestial turning.
NEVER ANYMORE FEELS
What should I personally protest against? Poverty? Misery? Murder? Rampage? All these are part of the natural system, which existed long before civilization began. What hypocrites we are! Are we psychic angels to forecast what modern marvels and saving miracles shall confer upon us: genetic engineering, gender transmutation, artificial intelligence? First, we must change those systems which we ourselves created: mathematics, science, socio-economics, and the politics of crushing authority. Then we may have the wisdom – the justness inscribed upon our religious temples – to change the natural order. I can only guess to understand what the “physician” meant by his usage of the word ‘normal’ — this from a doctor who describes ‘fatness’ as full-figured and operates on prepubescent children in order to fatten his own pocketbook and to tattoo-trace an eviscerated image of his own vaguely-carved sexuality. Incumbent upon modern man, as it was for Jesus two thousand years ago, is to stay awake in the hanging gardens and to pray His own drops of sweated blood (Luke 22: 39-45).
Isn’t it nice that no one works anymore; that none of our services require the collaboration of fellows in non-collusive effort? For what would the government, the CDC, and the HIV comforters say then? No longer do people share their after-hours together in relaxing, inordinate, and innocent play. No longer strange that most affairs of espionage come about through prompted sexual affairs and embedded terrorist cells. Isn’t it nice to be morals-free, vaccinated, hygienically-sealed from your own laboratory-generated gain-of-function disease?
No regrets, no sorrow, no act of repentance, no request for forgiveness; no mention of speed limits or sign of “bridge-out” to defer travel nigh ahead. Corrupt political candidates facing personal charges of tax evasion, family abandonment, and accepting foreign lobby money — becoming first in line to cry out for cleaning the swamp, restraining the Justice Department, reforming the military, reducing the national debt. Everyone shyly shrilling or slyly shilling —pocketing their eviction notice for substantiated personal reform. Bill Clinton for President! Still. Could be worse: “I suppose there are more depressing things than meeting a self-righteous busybody or biddy; there’s always the self-righteous dedicated sinner, for one [in answer to someone who derides the failings of religion specifically or of humanity in general, yet is himself hypocritical and totally unrepentant, who has not even bothered to go through the motions of a closed-door confession and open-heart river baptism].
Never anymore sorriness in the world. A lot of ‘understanding sorrows’, a lot of “I’m sorry’s”, but never any real sorriness. Never a suspension of irritating banter, or an admission to oneself of guilt, or a submission to admonishment from others. Never an attempt to voluntarily recompense the injured or sincerely soothe trampled-on feet, hurt feelings, or wrangled flesh. Never a ready receipt or acknowledgement of righteous indignation or a passive acquiescence to conscripted ridicule. Never a commitment to better conduct, struggling to be a conduit of the remissive, seeking open lanes of recalcitrance and swearing future avoidance. Our reactions toward others were deserved, so they say. They take it upon themselves – for whom, punishment is still in line; and charges of sin, once appraised, are holding others in queue for a modest price to pay. For such as they, there is no room for grace in a winter heart lying in protective hibernating mode, waiting to spring its retributive evil.
Was I properly moved? Did I not sympathize well? This was a sad case, and I was very much distraught. This was a miraculous recovery, and I was moved with relief. Return the record in its jacket; all in all, no human touched: only the shoe hits the ground.
CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE
Even as circumstances permit or are glaringly setup before us like a production package, in movie stage presentation, pending the next ordered page of upcoming script, players yet step into the trap, thoughtlessly; nevertheless, hoping to spare ourselves the personal embarrassment and painful consequences … curiously … like unto those actually caught in the geographic middle of something occurring unexpectedly out of the blue. Would a tourist, who waywardly stumbles into the streets during which there is a running-of-the-bulls stampede, paint himself peculiarly and haplessly misfortunate, an incidentally brave adventurer, or more stunningly, an accidental victim? Did not the tourist journey from afar in order to witness the spectacle, then post himself and his selfies just outside the gate, or maybe on a low over-weighted balcony, muse that the possibility exists that he may be drawn into the event – though not perhaps from such sharp angle or close quarters? After watching so many science fiction and horror films, I am next to contemplate an aura of intentional corroboration must overwhelm these stage-struck actors, these pretenders of suspected innocents (innocence). How often was it that the soon-to-be charmed and inevitably bedraggled prey made herself available for the hunt, the tracking down, the killing, by vainly and vacuously going into places she should not enter, despite numerous warnings and already several occurred murders, anxiously clamoring to put herself on the auction block of slavish and perilous situations? At what point would he (the dupe) lay down his weapon at the worst possible moment or delay escape by brushing off an easy ride or available exit which would have taken him out of danger? The young and beautiful casualty was always want to take a shower just as the ominous threat posed, drew agonizingly close, and blood-drenched bodies started to drop with increasing unclean accumulation — apparently because she wanted to look fresh and properly attired when the murderer came to slash her throat. Upon gaining some weapon or advantage over the crazed killer, the hero would then go back into the cave, the hideout, cellar, the attic, the blaze — ostensibly to save others, some of whom (traitorously) didn’t deserve to be rescued, and thereby exposing or ultimately dooming them and the hero himself to the massacre. In some science fiction shows, the heroine would chance — at great risk to her own life — to save an animal over and above any other human comrades (“Alien”). Quarrelling and contesting with their fellow targets just when cooperation and teamwork was sorely needed, exploiting and harping on each other’s petty jealousies and weaknesses, with implications of conspiracy or wrongdoing, just as the hand of death became extremely imminent; inexorably falling down or standing paralyzed with fear when evasion was still feasible and obviously present, making it all so much easier for a completely wrapped and stiff “Mummy”, moving in sluggish mannequin march, to catch up with the much more nimble and maneuverable loser-victim.
Maybe in our naïve and elusive minds, none of us ‘deserve’ to have a cold, or to catch the flu, or to succumb to any other malady, disaster, or insufferable dispatch. From the other view of non-partisan eye-witnessing, we had to go out into the rain or in a snowy blizzard without adequate garments and sportswear; we had to go to that party, shaking hands with lots of sneezing and spewing sick people; we had to crack a deal to supply snuff to ourselves and our drug-friendly blowhards. Afterwards, we deprived ourselves of recovery time and abstaining, we didn’t allow ourselves enough rest … a drying-out period, or we failed to partake of the energizing food, proper medicine, or suggested range of vitamins designed to give our body an immunity or transitional resuscitation. Maybe we weren’t as circumstantially-innocent, preventatively-wary, cautiously-minded as we pretended.
Disregarding the hard-cast tocsin of “never to blame the victim”, an urban legend tells the (mostly true) story which captured headlines many years ago about a woman who filed charges of rape against three men. “How distressingly tragic for her!”, you say, as you bemoan the depravity of our sick times. Upon examining the backstory, however, it seems that the woman had went to a singles bar that night with the expressed desire of meeting some fellows and perhaps experiencing some carnal fun. The nightclub she attended was a well-known place for partying and partiers – with much drinking, swearing, and carousing, mixed with bouts of shouting, scrapping, and occasionally raucous fights. After flirting around and playing up to three (separate) men — not one, not two, but three likewise drinking and equally-smashed men, this woman invited all three men over and up to her apartment. There, she continued to drink and, later, imbue herself with some narcotics delivered by one of the men’s friendly contacts. Once weakened by incapacity and lack of physical restraint, her urges and urgings-on came back to haunt her when each of the three men started having sex with her in turn – which they might have foolishly thought was in saddled roping and tying, but also framing, of this night’s unbridled activities. If it is to be maintained “never to blame the victim”, who or what, then, is responsible: blame the heady circumstances, or the indulgent keeper of the apartment complex, the local nightclub owner, the bartender who served the drinks, the manufacturers and dealers of the alcohol and narcotics? Not in this case. Blame the three guys who probably think of themselves now as feckless circumstantial victims.
They who claim to be caught in the middle of a tug-of-war (positions or wills) may be accurate in their assessment of apparent relationships and triangulations, but chances are, they are misleading others, and probably themselves, in their analysis of actual willful dispositions. Much the same as those countries which claim to be a ‘nation of equals’ — although some citizens are verifiably more equal than others; or those who claim to be neutral, when, in fact, their only neutrality resides in their steadfastness to prop up controversy or to atomize spray agitation powder all around, with the devious aim of profiting from counter and cross-trading with ally and enemy alike. As previously accented with the legalities of judicial theory, no sitting judge should really count himself as impartial, that is, holding in cautious check a respectful restraint or circumspective indifference regarding any of the opposing parties. The super-rich or powerful with their vast resources and strong representation can easily employ coercive influence, versus the other side of the super-poor and the powerless or the handicapped may scarcely be able to obtain or comprehend counsel. Inferred within the concept of impartiality is not just a determined effort to avoid special favor or one-sided distraction, or even the improvisation of doggedly maintaining an equidistant measurement of centrality; but rather an unbiased standing and understanding which endeavors to subtend fairness, yet with as much catalytic disarming and disinterested prolonging as to what will be the legal (experimental) outcome and who will be the surviving contestants (sacrificial lambs).
Moreover, one need not launch an actual physical advance upon the far-seen outpost in order to lose one’s virginity or (sense of) neutrality. Closer to home, present-day liberation groups and proponents of extending civil rights are profusely in an ever-expanding military advance to gain advantages over other organizations, to lobby for bills (coin and paper), and to promote, often with racketeering tactics, their crooked agenda. Forget their claims of public service and their responding to civil mandates. They took their sides in their unabashed advocacy for overthrowing procedural process, their launching of trebuchet stones on both soldier and citizen alike, or through repeated sneak-attacks of casting blow-darts at their unaware political targets.
While it might be pleasing to idealize that the vast majority of any identifiable, semi-sensible group in America, with any predilection for argument, reason, and responsibly-serving diplomacy, can be presumed to have softer innards beneath the social physics of a hard, outer shell, projecting and protecting the margins of their abrasive beliefs, it might still be questionable if this less-exposed disposition bequeaths them an internal moderation and perhaps even an isolated form of symbiotic communion. Contradictorily, it might be that within this large conglomerate, no matter how refined and aged, there also exists a much tougher minority clan caught in the active grip of purist fervor and vitriolic fever – bent on establishing reform or hardline fundamentalism. Flooding the banks of their own guardian ability to contain these jihadists, conflicts may ensue; or otherwise within the confederacy, the greater global community may have to mobilize and pass more restrictive, aggravatingly discriminatory, laws specifically against them. Often, such dampers on freedom arch back on the entire population.
The so-called ‘middleman’ in any commercial or professional context, prefigures centrally only in the sense of being in-between, and seldomly by occupying a fair locus of center-point. Beyond this, it should be realized that true impartiality is practically impossible. Much reminiscent of the (earlier) football analogy: both the referee and the flag are drawn to the side of partisan progress. Meanwhile, the spellbound sideline of opponents could be caught in clamorous shock or bored into disgruntled adversarial mood. The stadium audience cries their applause or boos with ebullience, while indifferent campers amongst them, or just outside on the parking lot, whistle the chants of a popular ever-moving wave, beleaguering them to partake of alcoholic pleasure or to share in the gluttony of tailgating fulfillment. Re-evaluate the message of faithful witness (Rev. 3: 15-16).
CONSORTIUM OF THE PARTIAL
I believe it was a notable senator who yet gave supporting commentary on the highly pretentious abilities of a nominee put forth by the President of the United States to the Supreme Court after reports revealed that he was an avid drug user in his younger days and often partied heavily during his college years. Though the nominee’s actions clearly diminished the educational worthiness of whatever contributions his presence at the prestigious Ivy-league university assumed, the overseeing institution would always give him leave and abidance purely because of his family’s name. “These revelations”, the senator said, “should not disqualify him from serving on the court any more than an outrageous outing of him as being gay, a socialist protest-monger, or an infamous lobbyist for Communist China. After all, this would be comparable to the disparaging and dismissal of a post-Civil War southern sympathizer in the late 1800s”. As a matter of formality, it should be noted that the President’s most recent nominee for Supreme Court Justice just happened to be of the same party (orders) as the Right (Left) Honorable Senator (let us call him John Smith). On a previous occasion, that same senator vehemently sought the disqualification of a nominee from another party on the grounds of his partying; likewise, another nominee when it was suggested in the biased media that he didn’t treat his childhood pets and friends with all due kindness and friendly considerations. Who the Senator supported, you see, was always as likely (literally) to be of the same wholesome association and wonderful celebration (party affiliation) as his own. Any other predisposition would be telling on a notorious gangsta rapper, a disease-spreading bisexual, or a Muslim turned infidel — callously and situationally ignoring the fact that Justices on the Supreme Court frequently hear cases on a regular basis that jeopardize American safety and severely rattle social sensibility, pushing cultural decorum into hazardous panic and infighting. Would this Senator also be just as forgiving if he was asked to endorse an upcoming Presidential candidate with such a druggy background or even greater personality defect — knowing that if elected, his shaky finger and cloud-tinged mind would be on the controls of our nuclear arsenal?
We, as average citizens, brought up in a public-education system, are taught that the American system of legal justice is the greatest, most fair, most dependable in the world. However, if the ‘Honorable’ Senator Smith is symptomatic of all of the other legislators, who hang their fidelities and their dignity on teetering totem poles of person payola and throw their support behind fault-ridden mates, doesn’t that imply that all of their candidate selections are like (similar to) them: party hacks with no real concern for universal justice and fair-play? With what surety, therefore, can we count on Justices to decide on and pass out equal and respectable justice? An agonizing truth is thus re-affirmed with mindful vigilance: the only protection the average person actually has in the law is indifference; that is, riding invisible sleight under the radar of judges’ overt prejudice and avoiding the riling of the courts’ contempt and scorn. As preached above, it has been proffered by some judicial scholars that equality is best served through indifference: here meaning, specific intentions not to favor one side over another. Paraphrased fatefully … the best way to be fair to all is to be ambivalent to each. But the collateral effects of society and the ongoing neglect and suffering of the special needy are not alleviated by judicial-system ambivalence. Across the system, there once was a time when Justice arranged a corrective duty (pending penalty) of equitable retribution, disassembly, and overall restoration — meaning the enactment (exacting) of punishment toll that fairly corresponded to the surmising of the subject’s proven guilt. By force of collateral measures as well, the decision would wisely extend to third-party damages, such as would be invoked for children (e.g., of divorce), the mentally ill, the environment, etc. No longer.
Putting scandals and batteries of illicit operation aside, we might like to think after some duration (physiological assumption of tenure), a Supreme Court Justice might turn into a statesman and his legal opinions encased in satisfying memorial stone. One Supreme Court Justice, approximately thirty years ago, placed into the public forum his comments on the valuableness (invaluable nature) of the Constitution, accepting as he did the criticism of his time and the uncertain relevance of this document in today’s (then) society. Farbeit for me to debate the merits or demerits of a 200+ year-old document that has, thus far, served the country well. In doctrinal aspects, this would be like writing a scathingly critical medical evaluation on a man who has managed to survive well (in good trim) into his eighties. Were we more keenly aware of all his short-changes and deprivations, his military service, his decades-long trials and unfortunate experiences, we might be even more impressed with his sustaining natural robustness and constitutional fortitude (pun intended). Contriving a persnickety opinion, the critical doctor might assert that, if only this man had done this long ago or that for, lo, these many years; if only had eaten more healthily and precisely attuned himself to stringent exercise, he might still live far into his nineties or even over a hundred. Such ‘wisdom’ is often a perception of having come of age, a corollary of overlooked achievement, not practicing diligence, through reflective realization of now being blessed with 20/20 hindsight.
Whether the sun shall rise tomorrow in the east, or whether males and females should arise from bed to procreate themselves and preserve the human species — ask not for anything else, except this: your refraining from the silencing of Natural Truth. It doesn’t take a righteous and erudite judge to declare ‘factual’ what is already obvious, self-redeeming, and naturally unfurling. But it does require a corrupt judge to twist the abnormal into the normal. Therefore, we may take exception to the right of jurisdiction, and the faithful make appeal by virtue of their longsuffering, for the Most High Judge to dismiss their interim legal session, their prickly seasons of smooth-less remedy, their stays and vacation from stays, their embossed definitions of unwritten ‘law’ and temporary injunctions on the truth; make bound their binding resolutions, and toss out their poorly-shaped articles of tissue opinions like paper airplanes blown through an up-raised bathroom window. Those who sit upon judicial thrones and advocate not for justice of the peace shall themselves be relieved to go … without. May their capital punishment be legendary; their torments, their sharing of dungeon chambers, and their ordered executions end in capitulation on the guillotine, and their own heritage forsaken unto their children’s third and fourth generation. And let not one column stone remain unrolled, nor carved depiction of greatness have any relief, except as a mausoleum to human pride and the casting of broken lots in the tumbling of high-court sin. Leave as tribute only the flowers and tithes of their passing.
It matters as well why a life-time conservative who becomes appointed with permanent position on the Supreme Court – he suddenly gets prone to start voting with the left-leaning, socially-destructive liberals who, never contrariwise, always remain true to cracked plaster form. Like the new President who pledges to ‘clean the swamp’, once infused and royally spotted on high knoll, he finds it logistically beneath his field glasses and aromatically more comfortable to let bygones be bygones, to let foul matters continue to vegetate, rot, transform into muskeg, and turn the lofty campaign air of promise staunchly (stench-ly) fetid. Only when he dons dark glasses to cover his shady soul shall we gaze upon his true colors. Judges have had ample time to implement beneficial and cardinal-order change. Now change must come, regardless the permission … or being sworn in … of the people, by the people, for the people.
As for judges, so for lawyers and defense attorneys. You have heard the unremorseful confessions and recorded the unrepentant attitude of the brutal rapist, but this did not dissuade you from taking his case or cause you to doubt the sacredness of your holy legal directive and professional mission (to despise and dismiss the guilty truth). Instead, you scoured the pages of library precedents in search of some technicality that might sidetrack or trip up the investigative steps taken by the police department. Any misstep of the prosecution that might clumsily or negligently trod upon the perpetrator’s fundamental human rights – will you litigate for your client while acknowledging no concern or courtesy for those of the victims. Upon the miracle of an actual arrest, trial, and conviction, only then does the family come to realize that the state has never had any intention of rectifying justice, much less compensating the muffled victims. In the relaxation of a long prison term or the everlasting postponement of execution, you have satisfied your goal as defense attorney. Nothing makes you happier (or richer) than performing your unsavory duty of protecting the rights of the accused, even greatly suspected guilty, especially and wantonly if that comes at the expense of the injured person’s life, a family’s misery, and the loss of a community’s security. At your utmost pleasure, you will have hounded the witnesses and compounded the suffering on the innocent side such that no one in any future case will ever seek to undergo the ordeal and override the open challenges to their character, moreover the constant replays of the tragedy in disgusting detail. Nothing will deter you from your magnificent objective, not even libelous assault: the ends justifying the means. Finally, you can rest with the acquittal of the criminally held … until the freed goes on the hunt again. Perhaps this time you will get ‘luckier’ when he proceeds to kill his next victim. For this legal disbarment and clever courthouse manipulation, you are no more shamefaced of your releases than a baby with incontinence.
Expressed before, there can be no pretense of understanding for the concept of impartiality, by sense of professed superiority and scientific objectivity. If this is the case, why not be impartial about treating diseases, indifferent about cuts and lesions, non-committal about healing cancerous infections and fixing cardiovascular malfunctions? Why not live and let live … and let the patient die, as the case of natural propensity, and as your prognosis, calls for it? If not so moved, then the side you choose medically to take … in these faltering conditions … supposedly on behalf of good health and beneficial intervention is the same side which society must choose for its own protection, not in support of some liberal agenda. Society too has its social diseases, its virulent infections, its violent wounds, its broken structures and organ obstructions. There must be rules and guidelines giving transcendence to the functioning of the physical body and the socially-conforming mind. Why can you not see this evidence, instead of accepting every racist attitude and trite liberal excuse to remove the depositions on facts?
Psychiatrists (again) retort, “I am able to say what is best for myself, though not for others”. But isn’t that your doctoral profession, telling people what’s wrong with them? Still you disclaim, “I believe what I believe, and he believes what he believes: this is on his part or on her part; and sometimes it is best to take no part at all”. His or her? Don’t you mean “it”, since no one has a set gender any more … a fixed agenda, yes, but not a fixed gender. How is what you believe “impartial”? In a society, you and everyone else should be in all parts, effused in all points living and habituating, all points of view sharing. When you at first have your own interests at heart, then that of your family, then your neighborhood, then your state or country, then the world, and finally the whole universe, then you may bear the health and welfare of everything that concerns you, with all parts taken up in you. Until then, you are a poor doctor, because you are a poor judge of the condition. Impartiality does not mean unconcern; it means without division. What is more estranged in this matter, impartiality means having no uninvolved parts — no parts for which you do not invoke some interest or wherein your caring does not fund some vested sense of belonging.
Love the Truth first; then you may love the vicissitudes of all life as though your self were in them. So now you shall know what it means to be impartial: to have a stake; but on whosoever side you share, you consecrate Wisdom more, for the protection of the graced and disgraced. And may heaven punish anyone who violates the Spirit of the Law.
Earlier, made sullen in Points of Analysis II, I envisioned, we all reason through the colored light of winsome vanity. One would thing, then, given this conscious recognition of inherent bias and vulnerability to self-deception, that each of us would take respite or give pause before ever brashly, blindly, or thoughtlessly voicing our opinions. At least one should refrain from offering unsolicited advice (as I do here). But such is its own vile retainer and evil sustainer. Precisely because we instinctively judge from outside the context of impartial reason, but rather in alignment with our ignorance and personal prejudice, we dare think our ideas are noteworthy and bear consideration; and, consequently, daunt qualified expressing.
SEARCH PARTY
In settings of millions of years afore …
the crystal opal-strains
scattered away the iridescent colors of display,
voided the founding by blue luminescent light,
leaving stranded their costume shining
and historic chances of sparkling in the rough.
I no longer have the resolute home to rain,
nor the hand-hewn beams of timber overhang
to cavern mine the flaming sky-cover
of its flesh-thinning granular dissolve.
May time … and plague … yet block my descent
into deeper chambers and unlit corners
of trinket obsession.
REFERENCES
Drescher, J. (2015, December 4). Out of DSM: depathologizing homosexuality.
Retrieved from https://www.ncbl.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4695779/
Gottschalk, J. (2020, July 22).List of 183 monuments ruined since protests began, and counting.
Retrieved from www.thefederalist.com/2020/07/22/list-of-183-monuments-ruined-since-protests-began-and-counting/
Jung, R. (2018, March 25). Unit 731: Imperial Japan’s biological and chemical warfare.
Retrieved from www.dangerousworld.soe.ucsc.edu/2018/03/25/unit-731-imperial-japans-biological-and-chemical-warfare/
Kikoy, H. (2018, July 26). Japan’s Dr. Mengele: medical experiments on POWs at Unit 731.
Retrieved from www.warhistoryonline.com/history/unit-731-prisoner-camp-japanese.html?chrome=1
Nerozzi, T. H. J. (2022, September 16). Migrants bussed from Martha’s Vineyard to US military base, US attorney seeks DOJ ‘input’ on response.
Retrieved from www.foxnews.com/politics/migrants-bused-marthas-vineyard-us-military-base-us-attorney-seeks-doj-input-response
