The simple fact that Cosby’s
conviction aroused so much joy in his plaintiff and prosecutors is bad enough;
one never saw that sort of elation in survivors of the Holocaust during the
Nuremberg Trials, but then what can I say? I wasn’t there, so maybe I have no
right to judge. And neither does the American population have that right to
reduce the legacy of Bill Cosby to a slang term for date rape.
Andrea Constand’s triumph was
certainly a victory for her ideology, but it remains to be seen to what extent she,
like the constituent of ANY special interest group that preys upon public
sentiment and violates due process, was motivated by money. Reading the history
of capitalism has robbed me off my scruples in accusing others of profiteering.
If people used to employ six-year-olds in cotton factories, I should feel
OBLIGATED to point the accusatory finger at absolutely anyone who would demand
monetary reparations of any kind. Nothing is beneath the human being, or so it
seems. And evil people love a good scapegoat, especially when that same
scapegoat is a lion.
The Court was not without the provision
of a fig leaf. In the absence of physical evidence to substantiate the
allegations, many of them barred by the statute of limitations, lawyers had to
dig deep. What they found was nothing more than a friendly conversation between
a convicted Cosby and a deposition lawyer in 2005. Cosby essentially “confessed”
to three misdeeds that were conventions (especially in the African American
community that he would go on to criticize in later life) at the time that he
allegedly performed them:
-
Being in possession of a popular recreational drug, with
which he was not too miserly to share with his female cohorts.
-
Touching Andrea’s butt, especially after she had
objectified herself and expressed a desire to be objectified. (Were this not
the case, her description of her ideal butt would be without meaning, since
calling her butt “tight”, as she aspired for it to be, would be considered
objectification.)
-
Presuming upon his own ability to read nonverbals,
desire and intentionality.
The latter of these is the most damning,
but not of Cosby, but rather his entire generation of accusers. The entire
concept that silence cannot be consent ought to be a cause for moral outrage,
if only because the ability to transcend the need for spoken communication,
which Deleuze* had derided as being “seductive” and “impure” by contrast with
writing, is a birthright of the human mind, without the pursuit of which we are
subject to the authoritarian rule of language. The ability to communicate
things nonverbally is not the solitary province of holy men such as Sri Ramana
Maharshi, though perhaps Enlightenment and the Total Comprehension of Existence
is not something that we ought to dismiss as mere superstition. In fact, daily
life constantly requires us to be able to read the emotions of others.
Inability to do so would render us grievously disabled; the D.S.M. literally
defines it as the most severe autism, but apparently that is how the legal
system perceives us. Nonverbal communication, especially as empathy, is also
arguably how we learn language to begin with, and this is evidenced by the fact
that people who do not speak a given language can still understand the
behaviours of people who DO speak that language by simply observing gestures
and facial expressions. Social life requires us to be able to read social cues
while legal life precludes our potentiality to do so, even stooping to so
depraving a hypocrisy as to turn Cosby into a scapegoat for claiming that he is
CAPABLE of performing up to so noble and imperative a standard. Had America’s
Dad wanted simply to cover his own tracks, he might have denied the allegations
outright; it was all ready too late in the game for any probable scientific
forensic evidence to be summoned against him. Why then was he so blunt in his
deposition? Simply put: a man, in the classical sense of the actualized male,
must be. How else could he BE America’s Dad? The only reason that his bluntness
is demonized, as though it were arrogant boasting of a devil, lies in this
fact: feminists hate men. They are content to rule over men who parrot the
dogmas of feminist ideologies, but the moment that a man claims to understand
WOMEN, they use this as evidence for his inability to understand them,
presuming that anyone who TRULY understands them must confess that they pass
understanding entirely. The feminist stance is thus twofold predation: one by extraverts
against an introverted minority (since Jung demonstrated that introverts tend
towards nonverbal “non-directed” or symbolic thinking whilst extraverts tend towards
verbal or “directed” thought, even illustrating how this works in rhetoric in a
cartoon from his book on Psychological Types), and secondly by women upon men.
The legal status quo verily overlooks the most critical wisdom that tradition
has bestowed upon us about heterosexuality: that it is a MEETING OF OPPOSITES.
Too often a generation corrupted by the misappropriation of Deconstructionist
thought denies that “gender” has an intrinsic psychosexual weight, but common
sense and custom show it to be universally so: men, if they seek to be lovers,
without which they can’t be men, must take initiative and be forthcoming;
women, by contrast, are not only socially encouraged but temperamentally
inclined to be covert, RATHER THAN overt, and they value men as sexual partners
ONLY TO THE EXTENT that those men CAN READ THE COVERT SIGNALS and ACT UPON
THEM.
*Deleuze also incidentally professed
the pursuit of the Body without Organs, a state which by necessity must
transcend conscious “knowledge”.
This is not mere theory divorced
from common life. If the “Court of Public Opinion” amounts to anything more
than the mob that gave us the slave trade and the Holocaust, one can see it
working its magic at any downtown nightclub, where young girls often will dance
with you only if you start dry humping them and turn you away if you ask
permission. And this is ESPECIALLY the case in African American sectors, where
recreational drug use and fondling are so common that it might be considered
ethnocentric to even turn one’s nose up at them. (Though I must confess to a
sort of proto-Fascist outrage on my own part when, having been corrupted by
several years of feminist suggestion, I discovered this to be the TRUE state of
affairs in the youth.)
Why should Cosby have to apologize
for having been a part of this nearly HALF A CENTURY AGO? Must we presume that
what he did back then MUST have been worse than what passes for convention right
NOW?? What about the Hindu notion that things get worse over TIME? At any rate,
if the nineteen-seventies truly were so hellish, – and we DO have reason to
believe that they were at least more segregated, so acts of sexual misconduct,
as defined by white Americans, would have been expressions of black identity, (and
it would be TERRIBLY presumptuous to think that our contemporary view of
misconduct is so absolute that this observation might be considered derogatory)
– then the laws of the time would not have held Cosby in contempt, and he would
remain an innocent, law-abiding citizen, save for the fact that he possessed a
few narcotics. And let’s face it: we sort of expect black performers to possess
a few narcotics. It’s been the case since Satchmo, and Cosby represents his
people when he admits it. Social justice warriors ESPECIALLY hold this
prejudice, especially when they accuse lawmakers of racism because certain
forms of cocaine which are known to be popular in urban ghettos are regulated
more severely than the kind that affluent white people enjoy.
I should add that Cosby is a Cancer,
and by that of course I mean the birth-sign, not the disease. Many women
practice Western astrology, even for profit, and fairly universally they agree
that water-signs are adept at reading people. Cosby’s wife would probably
agree, being a Pisces herself. Even if Cosby was in some ways inhibited by
lust, he certainly would have considered empathy a chivalrous ideal to strive
towards, and if his intent was to be a true romantic, then he would have
embraced his Cancer identity. Camille Cosby, who herself is a dead ringer for
the fictionalized version that Bill created for her, insisted that her husband
was the man that he had depicted on television, a fitting medium for a sign that
is associated directly, and almost exclusively, with the Public. Cosby’s legacy
rivals Robin Williams, (who ALSO talked a lot about doing recreational drugs that
made him love people) and his legal issues are Kafkaesque in scope. (Both
Williams and Kafka share the Sun sign, which is also said to rule the archetypal
family.) Why then would people prey upon the well-meaning, trusting empath?
That remains a question for the ages. Or just Whoopi Goldberg.
[({Dm.A.A.)}]
No comments:
Post a Comment