The horror, seen and felt

Roger G. writes:

I’m bouncing off the walls here. How do you satirize this? Zimmerman did everything, everything we’d want a man to do. He had volunteered to serve his community, and was acting in that capacity—without pay. He alertly perceived, and properly reported, a suspicious individual. Told by the dispatcher to desist following, he did not have to obey, since that person had no authority to dictate his movements, yet he complied. The suspicious individual attacked him with no good cause, but with undeniably vicious—and arguably fatal—intent. Zimmerman did not immediately use deadly force, but resorted to such only when he not only perceived no help to be coming, but also was entitled to conclude that such force was necessary to save his life. He applied that deadly force properly and skillfully. His judgment, and his conduct, were flawless—far beyond what we’d expect of a civilian auxiliary. And aside from the entirely justified benefit his actions were to his own innocent self, what a boon he has conferred upon society! How many prospective victims of Trayvon Martin now never will know that individual’s attentions, and therefore owe Zimmerman their gratitude, and possibly their lives? Yet mighty forces in society are conspiring to hound him into his grave. And we wonder at the Nazis? The Soviets?

- end of initial entry -

Jason R. writes:

Roger G. writes: “Zimmerman did everything, everything we’d want a man to do.”

Including vote Democratic? But, seriously, unless Roger is slyly satirizing the liberal media’s rush to judgment, he surely needs to rein in his enthusiasm for Zimmerman’s defense case as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In particular, one of the 911 calls included screaming which, to these ears, sounded more likely to be Martin’s. I now see that a couple of experts are leaning in the same direction.

LA replies:

I do not agree with Roger that Zimmerman is absolutely established as upright and innocent, though I believe it is more likely than not that he is innocent. I posted Roger’s comment because it well expressed the horror that one ought to feel about this national lynch mob and about what America has become.

I’ve replied to the story about the voice yelling on the 911 call here.

Roger G. writes:

His politics, yes, I give you his politics (apologies to Robert Bolt and his Thomas More).

Otherwise, what portion of my synopsis is not consonant with the evidence? [LA replies: None of your synopsis is inconsistent with the evidence; but it remains the fact that we do not know for a fact that he is innocent.] But by all means let’s not go too far, or someone might think us injudicious, and that would never do.

Okay, I do admit that, besides truly meaning what I wrote, I was also trying to do what Limbaugh did so effectively when he called what’s-her-name a prostitute and a slut, and for which he never, never should have apologized. Of course he didn’t mean those terms literally, and of course the Left knew that; their outrage was, as always, feigned and cynically employed. But his apology once again left them to control the debate. “Slut” and “prostitute” are not obscene, or even vulgar; a minister could use them in the pulpit. But these terms are harsh, and in this instance entirely called for. It is with such harsh rhetoric that we must meet the evil of the left. We must never be afraid to do so; rather, when they object, we should reiterate and escalate. So when the Left pretends shock at “slut” and “prostitute”, we should reply, as Limbaugh originally did, that she should send us videos, since we’re paying for the sex. And when the Left vilifies Zimmerman and extols Martin, we should praise Zimmerman in detail, and thank him for sparing us Martin’s probable future predations. Otherwise we’re left with our whiny rhetorical complaints, that Larry so rightly detests, about the double standard.

LA replies:

It appears that for Roger, there are no standards; since the left is vile, we in order to fight them effectively must be equally vile; since the left is indifferent to truth, we should also be indifferent to truth. I know many on the right agree with Roger’s counsel. I do not. I think it is a path to nowhere.

As I wrote in a 2010 entry about the exposure of the disgraceful hype surrounding the 47 million year old primate fossil “Ida”:

We live in a society in which orchestrated falsities designed to control human beings have become the norm. One of the main tasks of traditionalists is to make truth, rather than manipulative hype, the recognized standard of public discourse.

Roger replies:

But nothing I suggested is vile.

LA replies:

Limbaugh’s behavior that you approve of, calling a woman a slut and a prostitute on national radio, and suggesting that she send us videos of herself having sex, is not vile?

Roger continues:

Though on further thought, it was unfair to call her a slut and prostitute, since sluts and prostitutes participate in the free market, and don’t go begging for government subsidies. So in that respect, I suppose I should indeed apologize.

A reader writes:

According to CNN, Zimmerman is a registered Democrat. I wonder if after all this he’ll change his mind.

Roger replies to LA:

No, it was not vile, because he was speaking figuratively, to make a point, and everyone know he was speaking figuratively. I never thought Clinton literally returned to his vomit.

LA writes:

I saw the video of Limbaugh saying that. He sounded like a coarse, stupid idiot and, apart from the appalling dumbness and off-base quality of his argument (in which equated Sandra Fluke with a woman offering sexual services in exchange for money), I didn’t see anything “figurative” about it. And if by figurative you mean he didn’t literally mean it, and therefore it’s ok, then your argument is like that of Bill Mahr who thinks that he can say anything about anyone no matter how vile because it’s a “joke.” He spreads hatred, and then with the lowest dishonesty says’ it’s ok because it’s a “joke” and therefore he didn’t really mean it.

VFR is not about this level of discussion. It is not about partisanship and justifying anything in the name of partisanship. I am surprised that after reading the site for several years you don’t seem to understand this.

Roger replies:

I think you keep begging the question with “vile,” “partisan,” and “justifying anything.” But maybe you’re right. Anyway, even if I’m not a true traditionalist, at least I can cheer from the sidelines.

Clark Coleman writes:

Roger G. wrote:

“Told by the dispatcher to desist following, he did not have to obey, since that
person had no authority to dictate his movements, yet he complied.”

Did he comply? The weakest part of Zimmerman’ story is that he only got out of his car to check an address. In addition to not being that plausible in a neighborhood he is very familiar with, how long do you have to be out of your car to check an address? Will someone a good distance away from you pursue you and attack you during this short time before you can get back to your car?

Much of Roger G.’s summary is accurate, but this is an example of how one-sided it is.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 01, 2012 01:44 PM | Send