Dear Reader, A Word

The following is a story. A tale that could be true - if you're a believer. A parable. A yarn that's not exactly true but real nonetheless. Which is to say -

Dear Reader, A Word

I'm not going to show you something unbelievable to make a believer out of you. I have nothing to prove. Instead, I'm going to tell you something real. Because I have something to say.

*

I observe - People. Events. Actions. Words - and a person who works - Diligently. Faithfully. Well. - fails to achieve what a person who does not work - Diligently. Faithfully. Well. - claims for themself - 

every prize - Won. - like a matador whose sword lunges from their muleta to victory as if to exult - why fight fair?! - when the rules of the fight aren't.

*

The Bull ⋅     It's easy - isn't it - to win a staged fight with a forgone conclusion? 

The President ⋅     That's unfair - a proper festival of feats is an extraordinary exemplar of athleticism - by a bull and a matador. Thus mind you, to disparage a matador is to disparage yourself. Tsk tsk.

The Matador ⋅    Well I agree that the right bull is a fighter, but nobody comes to a bullfight to cheer a cow, no? They come for the triumph of the superior performer against - what is unmistakably - a mere beast.

The Picador ⋅     Would anyone care to hear what I think?

The President, The Matador ⋅    Of course, of course, without a picador there is no spectacle, my friend!

The Picador ⋅     Right. Like one of a hundred sequins on a shiny 'fit, I am both 'indispensable' and invisible as a billable professional.

The President ⋅    No, no, a picador is the first show that beguiles the audience. They are essential - heroically so - But. - 

The Picador ⋅    :eyeroll:

The Matador ⋅    Yes, yes, the right picador sets the mood for a battle of adversaries. It's not the dazzle of a conqueror or the pageantry of a finale, but a first act is very special. 

The President ⋅    - for a splendidly marvelous fiesta, everybody matters - from the carpenters who build magnificent arenas to the hungry who feast on toro de lidia. A bullfight is a dramatic masterpiece; every role is a glorious stroke of brilliant composition. Thus you see, nobody is undervalued or devalued. Tut tut.

The Matador ⋅   Well I agree that nothing is trivial, but top billing is an honor earned in a ring. A picador is a prick but a matador is a killer, no?

The Bull ⋅     I concede that a spectacle is work. But stacking the decks and tipping the scales for an outcome that's calculated to advance neither talent nor merit, to spin a yarn about a 'champion' who 'wins' a canned hunt - that's pretending

there's decency and dignity in a rigged contest.

*

I observe - Officials radiating searing try-hard self-righteousness as they preside. Star performers breathing self-serving self-promotional hot air as they crow. Cogs laboring to be heard above commoditized theater as they spit. - 

while economies of contests, by contests, for contests - pretend not to observe - Officials. Star performers. Cogs. -

every performative triumph of - Justification over what's just. Bullsh!t over who's honest. Noise over what's plain. Pretense over all that's real. -

as if fictions no matter how unbelievable are nevertheless - True. Because. -

everybody is true to their word...

 

Author's Note

We don't believe every narrator... do we?

I mean... the stories we tell!... speak for themselves. Imagine if our testimony had to be honest... if instead of fictions we had to say:

a posture is a performance masquerading as a stand that is neither principled nor scrupulous; a belief is an invention that opines and decides and judges; and a boundary is an ask for respect, that is, to neither trespass nor transgress because trespasses and transgresses are harms.

I mean... to hear the oath-forsworn... what a catastrophe!... neither to guarantee nor safeguard a 'right' to swear false testimony, pshaw.

*

Needless to say... you and I both know... don't we?... a so-called 'right' to violate trust... isn't part and parcel to testifying to something real. As if having something to say... endows a so-called 'right' to be untrue, that is, to our word...

M

Innocence

Every word communicates a lot, but 'innocence' conveys more than most. Let's...

unpack our 'innocence', shall we?

Innocence

Loaded words say... sometimes more than we mean, sometimes less. But 'innocence'... that is more than 'a lot'.

*

From the mouth of the accused of wrongdoing, a plea of 'innocence' says 'I am wronged.' Whether true or untrue, a claim of 'innocence' spits with indignation 'This farce is a violation, an offense, an assault!' Never mind facts or evidence, to affirm one's 'innocence' is to insist 'The rule of law be damned for I am no lawless menace.'

But, of course, many charged with wrongdoing are not innocent; such that many contemn criminal behavior rightfully called.

*

From the mouth of a non-combatant, a cry of 'innocence' says 'I am not your enemy.' Whether true or untrue, an appeal to be spared the ravage of wrath begs 'This conflict against the civilian, the aid volunteer, the loved is not what militaries are for!' Never mind facts or evidence, to protest the destruction of one's people and one's place is to demand 'The rules of war be damned for I am no savage against peace.'

But, of course, there is no seat at the table for dissenters of armed hostility, no? For the campaign of annihilation welcomes not the campaign of diplomatic resolution.

*

In the case of the former, the innocent are harmed by the specious legitimacy of representation. It deceives bystanders and victims alike with a distortion of merit.

In the case of the latter, the innocent are harmed by the brittle assumption of association. So a whole population is condemned by a veneer of justification.

Notwithstanding the alternative:

The accused in the former could be 'innocent' and the combatant in the latter could be 'innocent', right?

*

Sure. As if that's it. The question and the answer of 'innocence'. Never mind the rest of us. The human beings on the other sides of the question.

Who are we?

*

When a defending party is just. When there is no cause to believe such body false or wicked. We who favor such person, do not see ourselves as 'unjust'.

Likewise, when an opposing party is fair. When there is no cause to believe such body wanton or cruel. We who favor such person, do not see ourselves as 'unfair'.

But we also know every body has devoted supporters. Including defending parties that are unjust and opposing parties that are are unfair. These loyalists see themselves as 'innocent'. Whether true or untrue. Never mind facts or evidence.

Because, of course, fealty.

*

I wonder then... don't you? If 'innocence' purports anything at all. Except and insofar as it rationalizes and excuses

who we sympathize; who we believe; who we extend succor and mercy; who we judge worthy of humane dignity.

Because we mean 'we deserve everything' as if the absence of 'innocence' means 'you deserve nothing'. 

Notwithstanding, all who don a halo of false 'innocence' to

plea for the same goodwill for their cries are not crocodile tears; claim the same trust for their appeals are not self-serving fabulations; affirm the same humanity for their protests are not games that cheat to win.

Because we say false 'innocence' is as good as real.

Such that it's not what 'innocence' says or means that is 'a lot'; it is what 'innocence' gets. Honestly or dishonestly. Rightfully or wrongfully. That is everything.

Nota Bene

The examples above are illustrative and not exhaustive.

NB

(i) When, for example, an accused assaults a person on the other side of a line in the sand... isn't the justification for such assault because the 'innocent' party isn't the assaulted? As if 'innocence' is the right to assault a person who is not.

(ii) When, for example, a believer in beliefs attacks a person who disbelieves... isn't the moral defense for such attack because the 'innocent' party isn't the attacked? As if 'innocence' is the right to attack a person demonized.

(iii) When, for example, a testimony is perjury... isn't the legal merit of forswearing an oath because the 'innocent' party is the liar? As if 'innocence' is the right to violate trust. 

(iv) When, for example, a cause promises to empower the aggrieved and an ambition promises to avenge the enraged... isn't the endorsement of such campaign because the 'innocent' party is the candidate who represents basics and @ssholes? As if 'innocence' is the right to say 'I don't care' and mean it. 

etc.

Because stopping at nothing to get everything is how false 'innocence' rolls. 

M

*

Author's Note

Consent of the governed

gained by false 'innocence' as the cornerstone or 'moral imperative' of a raft of laws and actions and policies and judicial opinions that undermine plural democracy is

neither the handiwork nor inalienable endowment of a... 'creator'.

M