In Judgment

The following is a song in the form of a spoken poem...

In Judgment

What is there to say

that hasn't been said?

that hasn't met the moment

of the living and the dead?

with hands that lift no one,

and feet that don't rise,

and howls that mean naught

but crocodile cries?

*

What is there to do

that hasn't been done?

that hasn't been thought or writ

or felt or won?

for the license of the few

to terrorize the many,

to lionize and glorify 

a parking lot penny?

*

We can listen to the noise

that says nothing at all

and do everything we're told

is best for us all.

But crocodiles and pennies,

don't die for the light -

they live for their own

and their right of might.

*

So before you halo

a sinner as a saint,

with a fabulist's brush

dipped in liar's paint -

remember to honor

the truth raw and bare,

the truth real and honest,

the truth just and fair.

*

Or listen to the noise

that cares not one bit

that it cleaves us into factions

of hell-fire and spit.

*

Follow who you follow

and do what's been done,

what's been thought and writ,

what's been felt and won,

for the pleasure of the few

to dominate the many,

to worship and revere

every bankrupt penny.

*

Parrot who you praise

and say what's been said,

that hasn't met the moment

of the living or the dead,

with words that lift no one

on waves that don't rise,

like brittle crocodiles

howling post-truth lies.

Further Reading

Author's Note (unpublished, tvfs) to In Judgment (above, tvfs)

M

Charade You Parade

'Identity' isn't a 'free pass' or a 'blank check' or a 'rubber stamp'. Which is to say, who you are doesn't give you permission to be a version of you that is your worst. It doesn't authorize, nor does it bless, the visions and beliefs that marinate and inflame every heart and any mind. Whether the 'identity' you claim follows from 'religion' or 'race' or 'nation', the charade you parade is

identity 

releases you from any and every mortal and immortal injunction.

Charade You Parade

I

'Identity' is not a recent scourge, but it is persistent. I suspect because it boils down to -

I am therefore I can.

* 

For example:

I am 'religious', therefore I can hate people who believe differently from me. I am 'deeply religious', therefore I can harm people who believe differently from me.

Why?

Because the exercise of 'religious practice' is - not (a) solely a belief in inhuman power(s), is it? - for it is also (b) a 'free pass' and a 'blank check' and a 'rubber stamp' - for (c) any belief derived from (a) - and (d) every practice derived from (a) - regardless of whether or not (e) such beliefs or such practices are 'good' or 'just' by

mortal judgment.

*

Case in point:

People who testify to 'being devout' exercise a 'pious practice' of hierarchy as though hierarchy cannot be a 'practice' separate and apart from (a). Despite the 'moral rightness' of such hierarchy not following from being part and parcel to (a) - but rather from being (c) and (d).

Hierarchy, therefore unsurprisingly, is neither a belief nor a practice subject to mortal opinions by exercisers of a 'religious practice' of hierarchy. For arguments that question the 'goodness' or 'justness' of hierarchy, on the basis of other systems of belief, are reflexively dismissed and reviled. 

Because people who testify to 'being devout' exercise a 'pious practice' of habitually dismissing and reviling other systems of belief. Including scientific systems of belief, secular and humanistic systems of belief, atheistic systems of belief, etc., no?

*

II

Which is to say, when 'identity' boils down to - I am therefore I can -

'identity' 

is too often a 'free pass' and a 'blank check' and a 'rubber stamp' for any idea and every agenda derived from I am therefore I can, 

regardless of ethical systems of belief.

* 

For example:

I am 'racial', therefore I can hate people who are 'racially' differently from me. I am 'deeply racial', therefore I can harm people who are 'racially' differently from me.

Why?

Because 'being free' is - not (f) solely a human right to self-determination, is it? - for it is also (g) a 'free pass' and a 'blank check' and a 'rubber stamp' - for (h) any idea or feeling or sense originating from (f) - and (i) every agenda or act or conduct arising from (f) - regardless of whether or not (j) such ideas or such agendas are 'right' or 'wrong' by mortal reason.

*

Case in point:

People who publicly defend an expansive and inclusive 'idea' of 'freedom' while unapologetically defending a suffocating and brittle 'agenda' that restricts and excludes as though (f) is not everybody's right to 'be free'. 

Because the denial of some liberties of some people is 'right'. Because the advancement of everybody's liberty is 'wrong'.

For I am 'free' to deny anybody's liberty if I am so autonomously-determined. Never mind that 'freedom' that issues forth from both sides of a people's mouth, defends nobody's 'freedom' from

illiberalism's repudiation of ethicism.

*

III.

Which is to say, when 'identity' boils down to - I am therefore I can -

'identity' 

is too often

authorization that blesses the erasure of mortal guardrails. 

*

For example:

I am a 'patriot' of my 'nation', therefore I can hate people who stand with a 'nation' different than mine. I am 'deeply patriotic', therefore I can harm people who stand with a 'nation' different than mine.

Why?

Because an 'oath of allegiance' is - not (k) solely a vow of fidelity and loyalty, is it? - for it is also (l) a 'free pass' and a 'blank check' and a 'rubber stamp' - (m) to wrong (n) in the name of (a) and (f) and (k) - regardless of whether or not (o) such wrong is 'lawful' or 'honorable' by

mortal authority.

*

Case in point:

People who sanction hostility against and towards political entities, including people and states and nations, as though (k) halos acts of aggression as 'patriotism'.

Because (l) and (m) and (n) and (o).

Because violence that serves the glory of one's own political entity, one's own people and one's own state and one's own nation, is a kind of 'respect' or 'duty' or 'love'. Not for a mortal 'fatherland'. Nor for an immortal 'father'. But for a release from any and every mortal and immortal injunction

to be a version of you 

free from the charade that 'identity' is a right, instead of a wrong.

 

 

More

Too often when we talk about 'identity' - we're talking about an 'idea' that has become a 'justification' that has become an 'agenda' -

to 'enforce' obedience and submission

to enforcers and enforcement -

*

Too often when we talk about 'identity' - we're talking about a kind of power and a kind of control -

to rob and strip and dispossess people of their rights and freedoms and liberties,

because they're 'non-conforming' or 'different' or 'not one's own' -

*

Too often when we talk about 'identity' - we're not talking about 'believing in an inhuman power' part and parcel to 'the exercise of religious practice' or 'a human right to self-determination' part and parcel to 'being free' or 'a vow of fidelity and loyalty' part and parcel to 'an oath of allegiance' - 

*

Too often when we talk about 'identity' - we're talking about the make-believe, the fiction, the lie that 'identity' is a right

to wield 'religion' and 'race' and 'nation' as the full armor of God

to wrong

with an inexplicable impunity that I suspect boils down to - the charade that parades: I am therefore I can.

M

*

Note

"the full armor of God" is a reference to Ephesians 6:11

M

You and I and the Truth

When someone says "there's not a lot we can do" - what I hear is "the powerful and the able are doing an awful lot

to not save us" and what I believe is that this is a weak excuse for basic, mindless, 'main characters' to lean into blaming-shifting while

evading a responsibility to be more than fantasists and nihilists and cynics.

You and I and the Truth

It is so easy to be a fantasist or nihilist or cynic, because it has always been so damn comforting to embrace fictions and delusions and the worst. After all,

when the alternative is the truth, lies are the compelling alternative.

*

Case in point: punching down.

The fantasist will tell you a story. Spun of whole cloth. Or wrapped like a precious diaphanous bow around a grain of plausible reality. A narrative that satisfies a hunger to be in on 'the secret'.

For all it takes to sell a tall-tale is a fabulist.

The nihilist will tell you a theory. Scattershot with absurd jargon. Or code-switches that wink and spit. Or thought terminating cliches that gush from pretensions of wit and wisdom. An ideology of permission.

For all it takes to sanction an annihilation is a justification.

The cynic will tell you a belief. Soaked through like a pig pickled in vinegar. Or as unrelentingly brittle as a desiccated hide. An opinion that there is no fairer judge of the truth - than a feeling.

For all it takes to see what isn't there is a false witness.

*

You see: punching down is so easy because it has always been so damn comforting to defend our unreasonable intolerance. After all,

when the alternative is standing with the punched down, the compelling alternative is not only tempting, but shameless.

*

Isn't this why we exhaust each other with 'deep conversations' and 'sweeping investigations' and 'insider revelations'?

To say

defying a call to disavow tall-tales, sanctioned annihilation, and false testimony can be honestly explained! - because fictions and delusions and the worst are so credible! - because fabulists, justifiers, and false witnesses are so appealing! - because look here -

this is plainly normal - everybody who is lead into this temptation is clearly ordinary - how everything about this blithe acceptance of obvious nonsense is understandable and thoroughly unexceptional - ?

Which is to say,

aren't 'deep conversations' and 'sweeping investigations' and 'insider revelations' the sacrosanct fuel by which we 'prove' that standing with the punched down is febrile? whereas the shameless alternative is not only vigorous but muscular and not only muscular but fearless and not only fearless but heroic - ?

*

You see: to be a fantasist or nihilist or cynic demands nothing more ingenious than a lie that is an imposter of the truth and a liar who is an imposter of confidence.

For all it takes for the powerful and the able to do an awful lot to not save us is

us, hearing fantasists and nihilists and cynics declare their victorious right to rule us all, as if basic, mindless, 'main characters' are not only our own, but our only rescue and salvation.

 

More

You paint the punched down with strokes like a brush clutched between the toes of an elephant.

Without apology.

As if this rendering of 'reality' and 'the truth' is acceptable to the alternative.

And necessary.

Because the alternative is the truth,

the answer to your prayers is not.

*

When a local bakery owner and a leader of a free country say "there's not a lot we can do" -

when an immigration attorney and an entertainer and an elected representative of the people and a corporate citizen say "there's not a lot we can do" -

when you say "there's not a lot we can do" -

do you hear yourself? 

leaning into self-censorship or blame-shifting or sugar-coating or numb distractions or self-dealing or entitlement, etc.?

*

When the sacrosanct 'fuel' by which basic, mindless, 'main characters' are 'proven' to be 'vigorous' and 'muscular' and 'heroic'

is

fiction and delusion and the worst -

and

fiction and delusion and the worst are doing an awful lot to not lift all boats -

an awful lot to prioritize fabulists, justifiers, and false witnesses as if tall-tales, sanctioned annihilation, and false testimony are precious realities -

an awful lot to not stand with the punched down -

because stories and narratives! because theories and ideologies! because beliefs and opinions! -

when will the alternative to fantasists and nihilists and cynics be you and I and the truth?

M